Bribery Scandal - FBI Probe - Book Richardson Involved

[ByJoveByJingle]

We’ll never get out from under the odious cloud of Vitale’s garlic infused body aroma . . . at least until he shuffles off the mortal coil.

[Postmaster]

Re. Count 10.

They way I read these excerpts is that Dawkins is telling Book that the Dawkins crew has already taken care of a player (probably Alkims). It didn’t come across to me as if Dawkins and Book were rehashing but instead Dawkins was telling Book about this player. Seems like they would have said the players name if they were both in on that transaction. And if Book was involved he would seemingly already know the situation.

Re: Quinerly. Dawkins is telling Book to take some money that was given to Book (by a Dawkins associate) to steer players to Dawkins, and use the money however he wanted to. Then Dawkins gives some suggestions on how to spend the money.

They are conspiring by Book sending kids to Dawkins so Dawkins can get them to sign with Dawkins after they leave school. They aren’t really planning to pay recruits to go to AZ. Just a suggestion by Dawkins, but not part the actual business model.

[dmjcat]

Re. Count 10.

They way I read these excerpts is that Dawkins is telling Book that the Dawkins crew has already taken care of a player (probably Alkims). It didn’t come across to me as if Dawkins and Book were rehashing but instead Dawkins was telling Book about this player. Seems like they would have said the players name if they were both in on that transaction. And if Book was involved he would seemingly already know the situation.

Re: Quinerly. Dawkins is telling Book to take some money that was given to Book (by a Dawkins associate) to steer players to Dawkins, and use the money however he wanted to. Then Dawkins gives some suggestions on how to spend the money.

They are conspiring by Book sending kids to Dawkins so Dawkins can get them to sign with Dawknins after they leave school. They aren’t really planning to pay recruits to go to AZ. Just a suggestion by Dawkins, but not part the actual business model.

Thats some serious contorting/rationalizing you are doing there. Even if Book had nothing to do with the money he still knew what was going on. Read the count again:

"facilitating and concealing bribe payments to prospective and current student-athletes at those universities"...........no matter how you cut it that is what Book is accused of and that is VERY definitely a grotesque violation of NCAA rules. Unless you believe the FBI is lying.

[Newportcat]

I am curious

1. How would you self Sanction, ie what would you propose the U of A does to self sanction itself

2. What type of punishment do you think the NCAA will put on our program if we don't self sanction

3. Is it possible you can be accused of something without full proof you did it ie is anyone ever charged with a crime and then is found not-guilty? Has it ever happened groups like the FBI charge people with larger crimes where the proof is shaky in an effort to scare someone into admitting guilt on the matter that is not in question so it looks like a win for them...you know like in this specific case

And for the record, the only one really rationalizing here is you funny enough. You are rationalizing that because someone talked about something they definitely did it. Where is the proof Rawle took money?

and the NCAA is going to come down on us without Proof? Granted it is the NCAA so they could do so since its literally the most worthless institution out there.

I am not an attorney but I play one on the internet

[azcat49]

Alkins: never ineligible after investigation
Ayton: same
Quinerly: cleared to play at Nova so clean
Bowen: not our problem

NCAA has got nothing

[PHXCATS]

Alkins: never ineligible after investigation
Ayton: same
Quinerly: cleared to play at Nova so clean
Bowen: not our problem

NCAA has got nothing

All of this. Plus Ayton was cleared by the NCAA twice and the FBI

[Spaceman Spiff]

Re. Count 10.

They way I read these excerpts is that Dawkins is telling Book that the Dawkins crew has already taken care of a player (probably Alkims). It didn’t come across to me as if Dawkins and Book were rehashing but instead Dawkins was telling Book about this player. Seems like they would have said the players name if they were both in on that transaction. And if Book was involved he would seemingly already know the situation.

Re: Quinerly. Dawkins is telling Book to take some money that was given to Book (by a Dawkins associate) to steer players to Dawkins, and use the money however he wanted to. Then Dawkins gives some suggestions on how to spend the money.

They are conspiring by Book sending kids to Dawkins so Dawkins can get them to sign with Dawknins after they leave school. They aren’t really planning to pay recruits to go to AZ. Just a suggestion by Dawkins, but not part the actual business model.

Thats some serious contorting/rationalizing you are doing there. Even if Book had nothing to do with the money he still knew what was going on. Read the count again:

"facilitating and concealing bribe payments to prospective and current student-athletes at those universities"...........no matter how you cut it that is what Book is accused of and that is VERY definitely a grotesque violation of NCAA rules. Unless you believe the FBI is lying.

You're broadly generalizing the count. It is a count encompassing all defendants, and the entirety of the scheme. To be involved in a conspiracy, there is no requirement that all members participate in every part of the conspiracy.

Book is accused of participating in the conspiracy. The individual acts he committed in the course of that conspiracy are more pertinent to the punishment we may face.

Finally, conspiring to break NCAA rules may be a crime. It may not be a NCAA violation. An example outside this context, it may be a crime to conspire to murder someone even if the person never actually gets murdered. For NCAA purposes, they generally weigh only whether the school broke a rule, not whether people in the school conspired to break a rule.

Summary, you're giving a 20,000 foot view of a far more complex issue.

[dmjcat]

I am curious

1. How would you self Sanction, ie what would you propose the U of A does to self sanction itself
If you read this thread last spring you would know that I advocated skipping the NCAA tournament......which as it turns out would have been preferable to what happened

2. What type of punishment do you think the NCAA will put on our program if we don't self sanction
Not sure but it sure as hell won't be a box of chocolates. Bribing players and offering money to potential recruits violates everything in the NCAA Book

3. Is it possible you can be accused of something without full proof you did it ie is anyone ever charged with a crime and then is found not-guilty? Has it ever happened groups like the FBI charge people with larger crimes where the proof is shaky in an effort to scare someone into admitting guilt on the matter that is not in question so it looks like a win for them...you know like in this specific case

And for the record, the only one really rationalizing here is you funny enough. You are rationalizing that because someone talked about something they definitely did it. Where is the proof Rawle took money? When did I talk about Rawle??? Go back and look at my post. I also don't think the FBI is making this shit up. Those that do are truly rationalizing.

and the NCAA is going to come down on us without Proof? Granted it is the NCAA so they could do so since its literally the most worthless institution out there.

I am not an attorney but I play one on the internet

[dmjcat]

Alkins: never ineligible after investigation
Ayton: same
Quinerly: cleared to play at Nova so clean
Bowen: not our problem

NCAA has got nothing

All of this. Plus Ayton was cleared by the NCAA twice and the FBI

Ayton was cleared by the FBI??????????? Where do you come up with this crap???

Please post a link where the FBI has publicly stated that they have "Cleared Ayton".

[dmjcat]

Alkins: never ineligible after investigation
Ayton: same
Quinerly: cleared to play at Nova so clean
Bowen: not our problem

NCAA has got nothing

You do realize (maybe you don't) that the FBI instructed the NCAA NOT to conduct any investigation into the scandal until the FBI gave permission????

Given that fact how was the NCAA supposed to investigate Quinerly/Ayton etc. etc. They had little choice but to clear them all for play until they were allowed to investigate the charges/allegations at a later date.

[ASUHATER!]

Alkins: never ineligible after investigation
Ayton: same
Quinerly: cleared to play at Nova so clean
Bowen: not our problem

NCAA has got nothing

You do realize (maybe you don't) that the FBI instructed the NCAA NOT to conduct any investigation into the scandal until the FBI gave permission????

Given that fact how was the NCAA supposed to investigate Quinerly/Ayton etc. etc. They had little choice but to clear them all for play until they were allowed to investigate the charges/allegations at a later date.

I don't think you've been paying attention

[Newportcat]

I am curious

1. How would you self Sanction, ie what would you propose the U of A does to self sanction itself
If you read this thread last spring you would know that I advocated skipping the NCAA tournament......which as it turns out would have been preferable to what happened

2. What type of punishment do you think the NCAA will put on our program if we don't self sanction
Not sure but it sure as hell won't be a box of chocolates. Bribing players and offering money to potential recruits violates everything in the NCAA Book

3. Is it possible you can be accused of something without full proof you did it ie is anyone ever charged with a crime and then is found not-guilty? Has it ever happened groups like the FBI charge people with larger crimes where the proof is shaky in an effort to scare someone into admitting guilt on the matter that is not in question so it looks like a win for them...you know like in this specific case

And for the record, the only one really rationalizing here is you funny enough. You are rationalizing that because someone talked about something they definitely did it. Where is the proof Rawle took money? When did I talk about Rawle??? Go back and look at my post. I also don't think the FBI is making this shit up. Those that do are truly rationalizing.

and the NCAA is going to come down on us without Proof? Granted it is the NCAA so they could do so since its literally the most worthless institution out there.

I am not an attorney but I play one on the internet

Is there proof book took money and paid rawle or a recruit or proof Rawle took any money while at u of a from an agent?

Book took money for sure which was a crime but not an NCAA violation

I have seen no evidence any recruit was paid or current player was paid outside of tapes of chris Dawkins talking. And one thing I have learned through all of this is Christian Dawkins is a lying piece of shit. Tony bland is actually happy he is such a piece of shit that he only gave him $4k and not the $13k he was supposed to get.

[EVCat]

Alkins: never ineligible after investigation
Ayton: same
Quinerly: cleared to play at Nova so clean
Bowen: not our problem

NCAA has got nothing

All of this. Plus Ayton was cleared by the NCAA twice and the FBI

Ayton was cleared by the FBI??????????? Where do you come up with this crap???

Please post a link where the FBI has publicly stated that they have "Cleared Ayton".

You can't prove a negative. The FBI never charged Ayton. Or did anything with Ayton.

An ESPN story erroneously put his name as a player Dawkins was looking to pay to deliver to Arizona. Except we know the time the wiretaps were during, and Ayton was already in school, and the supposed wiretap discussion was about a recruit, not current player.

And the FBI really doesn't care if his family friend got some money.

So, in this respect...I suppose you haven't been cleared by the FBI for killing the Pope. But you haven't exactly been charged with it, and the Pope isn't dead. So...I waiting for an FBI press conference to "clear" either you or Ayton would be silly. But the FBI and Ayton were only linked by a revised ESPN story. And, after the FBI contacted Miller and Arizona, Ayton continued to play. So, I am going to go on a limb and say the FBI has no interest in Deandre Ayton in relation to the wiretap or his time at Arizona.

And they aren't going to "clear" him of non-charges that were never pending that never existed. They haven't cleared you, either.

[PHXCATS]

Alkins: never ineligible after investigation
Ayton: same
Quinerly: cleared to play at Nova so clean
Bowen: not our problem

NCAA has got nothing

All of this. Plus Ayton was cleared by the NCAA twice and the FBI

Ayton was cleared by the FBI??????????? Where do you come up with this crap???

Please post a link where the FBI has publicly stated that they have "Cleared Ayton".

You can't prove a negative. The FBI never charged Ayton. Or did anything with Ayton.

An ESPN story erroneously put his name as a player Dawkins was looking to pay to deliver to Arizona. Except we know the time the wiretaps were during, and Ayton was already in school, and the supposed wiretap discussion was about a recruit, not current player.

And the FBI really doesn't care if his family friend got some money.

So, in this respect...I suppose you haven't been cleared by the FBI for killing the Pope. But you haven't exactly been charged with it, and the Pope isn't dead. So...I waiting for an FBI press conference to "clear" either you or Ayton would be silly. But the FBI and Ayton were only linked by a revised ESPN story. And, after the FBI contacted Miller and Arizona, Ayton continued to play. So, I am going to go on a limb and say the FBI has no interest in Deandre Ayton in relation to the wiretap or his time at Arizona.

And they aren't going to "clear" him of non-charges that were never pending that never existed. They haven't cleared you, either.

Scheer and others said this about the FBI clearing Ayton before he ever played at Arizona's. I will try to find it later

[Longhorned]

It’s true. The FBI interviewed and cleared Ayton. The subsequent Schlabach report is at odds with the FBI.

[EVCat]

It’s true. The FBI interviewed and cleared Ayton. The subsequent Schlabach report is at odds with the FBI.

"cleared" him in that they didn't find any need to name him as a potential witness, etc., after interviewing him a couple of times.

But he was never charged and then exonerated, which sounds like the kind of "cleared" the poster wants.

Either way...yeah. The FBI "cleared" him by not pursuing that lead any farther.

Ayton was actually asking the FBI to "clear his name" at one point, which is something they just aren't going to publicly do.

[EVCat]

From the SI piece, which should suffice, but isn't the FBI holding a national press conference to "clear" someone who was never charged, so maybe this isn't enough

According to the source, relevant FBI wiretaps in the investigation did not begin until 2017—months after five-star recruit Deandre Ayton had already committed to Arizona in Sept. 2016. This account is consistent with reporting by Evan Daniels of 247Sports. The recruitment of Ayton, therefore, would have not been at issue in an intercepted phone call that occurred in 2017. To that end, the source told SI what Miller clarified for the first time Thursday: Ayton is not the player on whose behalf former ASM Sports employee Christian Dawkins allegedly sought a payment from Miller, and Miller never pursued paying or made any payments to a recruit associated with Dawkins.

This account depicts Miller as complying with both the law and NCAA recruiting rules. The same holds true of Ayton, whose compliance with NCAA rules would ensure that he remains eligible to play for the final month of his freshman year.

[EVCat]

It's an older article that most of us have read a few times, but it is a good resource for why Miller is still here and why our leadership believes little to nothing will come down on Arizona from the FBI investigation

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2 ... spn-report

One particular passage is something we should apply logic to in order to come to a reasonable opinion of what happened...men with no particular need to put their own careers in danger by publicly supporting Miller did so quite suddenly and unexpectedly. One can only wonder what might have happened...if someone involved with the investigation might have made some back channel contact with these men to let them know firing Miller based on the allegations by some media would be a mistake...

On a related note, the fact that Arizona allowed Miller to publicly defend himself in an official capacity indicates that university leaders believe him. This is particularly significant since public universities tend to be risk averse. If the university’s top officials and attorneys found Miller unconvincing, Thursday’s press conference would have almost certainly not been held at the school.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Alkins: never ineligible after investigation
Ayton: same
Quinerly: cleared to play at Nova so clean
Bowen: not our problem

NCAA has got nothing

You do realize (maybe you don't) that the FBI instructed the NCAA NOT to conduct any investigation into the scandal until the FBI gave permission????

Given that fact how was the NCAA supposed to investigate Quinerly/Ayton etc. etc. They had little choice but to clear them all for play until they were allowed to investigate the charges/allegations at a later date.

The FBI requested the NCAA not take action on their investigation.

1. Ayton has never been a part of their investigation. The closest it has come to touching Ayton is testimony at trial that a friend of his family was paid to steer him to KU. He was not named in the complaint or any other investigation releases. There would be no reason for the NCAA to hold off on Ayton.

2. Quinerly is named. However, in addition to the NCAA letting him play, Villanova has played him this year. If Nova did not think he was clear, they would be forced to forfeit this season. That is a strong signal zero is on the horizon relative to Quinerly.

Those are your major two hooks for believing trouble exists and neither dog hunts.

[Longhorned]

The Arizona president and top admins have no further interest in the issue. It’s settled. Not an open question. And they aren’t wasting their time with ESPN. They’re focused on fundraising for athletic-related initiatives related to the new strategic plan.

[EVCat]

The Arizona president and top admins have no further interest in the issue. It’s settled. Not an open question. And they aren’t wasting their time with ESPN. They’re focused on fundraising for athletic-related initiatives related to the new strategic plan.

But retaining Miller and publicly supporting that retention at a time it appeared he was done for spoke volumes about their position. And administrators do not take those types of defining positions in protection of coaches they are not directly tied to hiring in the first place unless they feel confident it will not blow up in their face.

They have moved on to doing what they do. Because they are confident in their decision regarding Miller, the FBI investigation, and ESPN allegations

[PHXCATS]

It’s true. The FBI interviewed and cleared Ayton. The subsequent Schlabach report is at odds with the FBI.

"cleared" him in that they didn't find any need to name him as a potential witness, etc., after interviewing him a couple of times.

But he was never charged and then exonerated, which sounds like the kind of "cleared" the poster wants.

Either way...yeah. The FBI "cleared" him by not pursuing that lead any farther.

Ayton was actually asking the FBI to "clear his name" at one point, which is something they just aren't going to publicly do.

[dmjcat]

It’s true. The FBI interviewed and cleared Ayton. The subsequent Schlabach report is at odds with the FBI.

"cleared" him in that they didn't find any need to name him as a potential witness, etc., after interviewing him a couple of times.

But he was never charged and then exonerated, which sounds like the kind of "cleared" the poster wants.

Either way...yeah. The FBI "cleared" him by not pursuing that lead any farther.

Ayton was actually asking the FBI to "clear his name" at one point, which is something they just aren't going to publicly do.

Jason Scheer is NOT the FBI and is certainly not an official source.

Again, please post the FBI PR (or from any FBI employee) that Ayton was cleared. I know that Aytons lawyer and family insisted that the FBI clear him when the ESPN article came out last year...........but I don't ever remember seeing any word from the FBI saying that they did. The FBI has pretty much kept their mouth shut, which is standard practice in ongoing investigations.

[Chicat]

It’s true. The FBI interviewed and cleared Ayton. The subsequent Schlabach report is at odds with the FBI.

"cleared" him in that they didn't find any need to name him as a potential witness, etc., after interviewing him a couple of times.

But he was never charged and then exonerated, which sounds like the kind of "cleared" the poster wants.

Either way...yeah. The FBI "cleared" him by not pursuing that lead any farther.

Ayton was actually asking the FBI to "clear his name" at one point, which is something they just aren't going to publicly do.

Jason Scheer is NOT the FBI and is certainly not an official source.

Again, please post the FBI PR (or from any FBI employee) that Ayton was cleared.

Can you post the FBI report that clears you of running that child pornography ring?

[PHXCATS]

I will find that when you post the charges that the FBI brought against Ayton

[dmjcat]

It’s true. The FBI interviewed and cleared Ayton. The subsequent Schlabach report is at odds with the FBI.

"cleared" him in that they didn't find any need to name him as a potential witness, etc., after interviewing him a couple of times.

But he was never charged and then exonerated, which sounds like the kind of "cleared" the poster wants.

Either way...yeah. The FBI "cleared" him by not pursuing that lead any farther.

Ayton was actually asking the FBI to "clear his name" at one point, which is something they just aren't going to publicly do.

Jason Scheer is NOT the FBI and is certainly not an official source.

Again, please post the FBI PR (or from any FBI employee) that Ayton was cleared.

Can you post the FBI report that clears you of running that child pornography ring?

I prefer drug running.........its far more profitable

[dmjcat]

I will find that when you post the charges that the FBI brought against Ayton

I never said Ayton had charges filed against him.

You, on the other hand, stated that the FBI cleared him

Still waiting on you to post that FBI PR stating they cleared him.

[PHXCATS]

I will find that when you post the charges that the FBI brought against Ayton

I never said Ayton had charges filed against him.

You, on the other hand, stated that the FBI cleared him

Still waiting on you to post that FBI PR stating they cleared him.

I gave you what I have seen that is public. Get premium for the rest

[EVCat]

Not sure, again, what he would be "cleared" of from the FBI.

The FBI didn't write the ESPN article. The FBI doesn't go around "clearing" people they haven't charged.

But they did interview him and not pursue any further action. Not sure how much more clear "clearing" can be if there is nothing to clear.

The only thing that was alleged with Ayton related in any way to the FBI investigation was in an ESPN article that we know to be incorrect. Timelines confirm that, along with the lack of any further FBI action related to Ayton.

So is this simply an argument of semantics? Really? Or is there some substance in demanding proof of Ayton's being "cleared" because someone used that word that instead of a paragraph-long explanation of why Ayton isn't actually accused of anything?

Christ...

[azcat49]

I think the fact the feds have for the most part shut down their case/investigation, one could say Ayton is cleared. It’s almost comical someone would go the 12 year old line of show me the proof about something you would have to presume at best

Fact is we all hope we are fine with this but no one really knows and all we can go with us what we read and what we piece together in presumption

[dmjcat]

I will find that when you post the charges that the FBI brought against Ayton

I never said Ayton had charges filed against him.

You, on the other hand, stated that the FBI cleared him

Still waiting on you to post that FBI PR stating they cleared him.

I gave you what I have seen that is public. Get premium for the rest

So basically what it comes down to is that you are full of sh^t..........which comes as no surprise.

The FBI never had to "clear" him because he was never charged with anything. Even if he took $150k from an agent he would have done nothing illegal.

[PHXCATS]

I will find that when you post the charges that the FBI brought against Ayton

I never said Ayton had charges filed against him.

You, on the other hand, stated that the FBI cleared him

Still waiting on you to post that FBI PR stating they cleared him.

I gave you what I have seen that is public. Get premium for the rest

So basically what it comes down to is that you are full of sh^t..........which comes as no surprise.

The FBI never had to "clear" him because he was never charged with anything. Even if he took $150k from an agent he would have done nothing illegal.

What does Scheer say? Go to the board of his for more. It is against the rules to post his stuff here. I am not ace

[ByJoveByJingle]

I will find that when you post the charges that the FBI brought against Ayton

I never said Ayton had charges filed against him.

You, on the other hand, stated that the FBI cleared him

Still waiting on you to post that FBI PR stating they cleared him.

I gave you what I have seen that is public. Get premium for the rest

So basically what it comes down to is that you are full of sh^t..........which comes as no surprise.

The FBI never had to "clear" him because he was never charged with anything. Even if he took $150k from an agent he would have done nothing illegal.

Did he declare it on his 1040?

[dmjcat]

I will find that when you post the charges that the FBI brought against Ayton

I never said Ayton had charges filed against him.

You, on the other hand, stated that the FBI cleared him

Still waiting on you to post that FBI PR stating they cleared him.

I gave you what I have seen that is public. Get premium for the rest

So basically what it comes down to is that you are full of sh^t..........which comes as no surprise.

The FBI never had to "clear" him because he was never charged with anything. Even if he took $150k from an agent he would have done nothing illegal.

Did he declare it on his 1040?

Thats another question entirely. The bigger tax issue would be the requirement of the agent to report the $150K, which would require paying a gift tax.

[PHXCATS]

Could it be a word game? As in the FBI heard rooms and talked to Ayton and his family found nothing and therefore there was nothing to clear even though he was cleared?

[cats101]

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... -top-story" target="_blank

[PHXCATS]

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... -top-story

Richardson doesn’t have to cooperate with federal authorities under terms of the plea agreement, his attorney, New Orleans-based Craig Mordock said Tuesday.

UA coach Sean Miller has not been directly implicated in any of the allegations that surfaced in the September 2017 federal complaint and in October’s trial.

Former travel ball director T.J. Gassnola testified that he gave $15,000 to a family friend of Deandre Ayton in an effort to steer him to Kansas.

The allegations also could result in sanctions for Arizona if the NCAA finds them to be proven violations. Miller could also face NCAA penalties, even if he is found to have not known of them. NCAA bylaw 11.1.1.1 states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can “rebut the presumption of responsibility.”

The important parts.

The NCAA already cleared all the players mention in this except Alkins and there was no proof of payment just one sided plan. This is all about nothing except for maybe having Miller be in trouble slightly since an assistant broke federal law. Worst case is probation in my opinion

[zonagrad]

I would argue to the NCAA or whoever else is listening that any sanctions against Arizona, based on the evidence that is public, is unwarranted. Sean Miller and the Arizona program has already suffered significantly in terms of public perception and last year's recruiting. If the NCAA hammers Miller and the UA for Book's actions and inability to know what laws and violations he was committing, well, that's bullshit.

[PHXCATS]

I would argue to the NCAA or whoever else is listening that any sanctions against Arizona, based on the evidence that is public, is unwarranted. Sean Miller and the Arizona program has already suffered significantly in terms of public perception and last year's recruiting. If the NCAA hammers Miller and the UA for Book's actions and inability to know what laws and violations he was committing, well, that's bullshit.

Agree. No NCAA violations have been proven at all in this. Probation maybe but thats it just to get the NCAA to feel like it has a little bit of a win

[Chicat]

NCAA may still throw the book at us to set an example and deflect how little they’re going to punish a program like Kansas.

Let’s not forget what a couple free pizzas resulted in....

[Newportcat]

Thank god for professional sports where all this crap is legal and I do not have to worry about some worthless organization throwing the book at my favorite team over $20,000.

Its all so stupid it hurts

[Longhorned]

Other than Dawkins' claim to Bowen's father that Pasternack was offering $50,000, there are literally no NCAA penalties on the part of anyone at Arizona. Let the NCAA investigate and try to prove Dawkins was telling the truth about Pasternack offering $50,000 that was never accepted.

[Spaceman Spiff]

This appears to be basically what was on the wire. Book solicited a bribe to steer AZ players to Dawkins.

I haven't seen an article that adds to that basic proposition. He was on tape doing that, so this really isn't new. Is it skeevy, yes, absolutely. Is it an NCAA violation? That's harder to discern.

Book not cooperating further is a good enough sign this closes the door. If anyone has the actual plea doc link, could you post it? That would close the door on the type of bribery he is agreeing to.

[Newportcat]

This appears to be basically what was on the wire. Book solicited a bribe to steer AZ players to Dawkins.

I haven't seen an article that adds to that basic proposition. He was on tape doing that, so this really isn't new. Is it skeevy, yes, absolutely. Is it an NCAA violation? That's harder to discern.

Book not cooperating further is a good enough sign this closes the door. If anyone has the actual plea doc link, could you post it? That would close the door on the type of bribery he is agreeing to.

Also, who was the poster here, was it dmjcat, who thought maybe Book would rat. Was never going to happen. Book is not that stupid

[ChooChooCat]

FWIW both the AP and Star said he plead guilty for attempting to pay players to come to Arizona. In the actual document it doesn't mention a single thing about that.

[Newportcat]

FWIW both the AP and Star said he plead guilty for attempting to pay players to come to Arizona. In the actual document it doesn't mention a single thing about that.

I didnt see that in the article, said he pled guilty to taking bribes from Agents. it said Prosecutors alleged he tried to use the money to pay one require $15,000 player (Presumably Quinerly) but not what he was found guilty of. He was guilty of taking bribe money to agents. And because he took more then $10K I think, he will do jail time and Tony Bland will not.

it is super shady for Book to have taken this money but the fact he is going to jail on it is ridiculous.

And I really doubt Book would directly give money to a student athlete. He would keep it himself. Why would he take $20K then give $15K to Quinerly from his own pocket? That's not how it works. Book only makes $250K a year gross. So call it $165K net. So he is going to give almost 10% of his take home salary to a recruit when he can get Nike to give the money.

We will never know now but seems so suspicious he would do that. Its why Quinerly was probably cleared. And even if he did, who the F&ck cares, its $15K. Probably going to pay rent or food for quinerly's family.

Its just like dawkins telling his agency he gave Bland $13K when he really gave him $4K as he pocketed $9K.

[Newportcat]

Thought this was good

No mention of him paying recruits, only taking money from agents to direct players to them. Not an NCAA crime. List actual report from the court

https://247sports.com/college/arizona/A ... 128164415/" target="_blank

[Spaceman Spiff]

Thought this was good

No mention of him paying recruits, only taking money from agents to direct players to them. Not an NCAA crime

https://247sports.com/college/arizona/A ... 128164415/" target="_blank

That's basically all it is. We sort of benefit from him being involved late enough that the steering didn't actually have a chance to happen if it was going to.

At least from the press release, his plea appears to be the least directly impactful in terms of our NCAA consequences.

[Newportcat]

Thought this was good

No mention of him paying recruits, only taking money from agents to direct players to them. Not an NCAA crime

https://247sports.com/college/arizona/A ... 128164415/" target="_blank

That's basically all it is. We sort of benefit from him being involved late enough that the steering didn't actually have a chance to happen if it was going to.

At least from the press release, his plea appears to be the least directly impactful in terms of our NCAA consequences.

Yep and again the player he allegedly paid was fully cleared by the NCAA. The rest is all hearsay too with someone saying Pasternak said he would pay a recruit but no proof.

Again, I am fully convinced there is nothing here as there is no way any of our 2019 recruits would commit to us if there was.

Sad Book is going to see a jail cell for this but again, he should not have taken the money from an agent.

[dmjcat]

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... aign=share" target="_blank

Prosecutors said Richardson planned to use $15,000 of the money to entice one prized recruit to attend Arizona.

Richardson said he "knew this conduct was wrong."

The father of top prospect Brian Bowen testified in October that Dawkins told him Pasternack was offering $50,000 for his son to choose Arizona

The allegations could eventually result in NCAA sanctions for Arizona, even if Miller did not know of the reported wrongdoing. NCAA bylaw 11.1.1.1 states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can “rebut the presumption of responsibility.”

I can't see how anyone can read that and conclude that AZ is absolutely certain to get off scott-free. On top of this Dawkins and Company are still going to trial and are promising to "Drag a lot of people down with them"

We have a looooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg way to go before the Cats are clearly out of the woods.