Cam Newton (QB New England Patriots)

[Taosman]

Any plunger rape will have to be triggered by the FBI probe and that could take years. In the mean time we'll be treated to how wonderful Newton and Auburn are for a few. In a sick kind of cynical way perhaps the BCS gets the dynamite it needs. :tongue2:
And then there's the Heisman Club..............

But many thought that USC and Bush had gotten away with it also.

 

[Gatorubet]

At what point does intent, compliance and testimony come into play?

"Intent" is an element of any contract. Basically, there needs to be a meeting of the minds. Let's look at an example:

Let's say BP will ban someone for buying illegal drugs. Let's say you get a PM from me that offers to sell you cocaine if you come to New Orleans and have a golf weekend with Ubet and his friends. Let's say someone reads that, and so they presume your intent to buy drugs from me from my offer. Let's also say that BKB shows up in New Orleans a month later and plays golf with me and my buddies. Said I invited him to play golf. If that is all there is to it - my offer to you - then Josh is OK even if it looks horrible. In that example, Josh is Mississippi State. BKB is the Auburn in that example.

So while you will point out that you did not agree to buy drugs from me, BKB will point out that there is no proof that I even sent him a PM about drugs, let alone sold him drugs. He claims that he went to New Orleans for the food.

What you are arguing is that BKB should be banned from BP because he agreed to come to a golf weekend in N'Awlins....and because you are assuming the reason he came because you got an alarming PM from me.

I have to tell you, nobody is banning BKB because he played golf - absent some proof he got a PM from me, or got drugs from me, or agreed to buy drugs from me. The fact that you suspect that you THINK you know why he came to New Orleans is not silly....it makes sense....but it sure as [censored] is not proof. And no way does he get banned from BP if the BP rules and regulations say that he can only be banned for buying drugs if there is 1) proof he bought drugs, or 2) evidence that he agreed to buy drugs from me.

Do they have to be given official recordings of the benefits, or are the many testimonies in conjunction with solicitation of benefits enough to at least suspend him for a game?

I am unaware of any testimony of anyone that has claimed to know of a conversation between Cecil and Auburn or Cam and Auburn with the subject being $$ for Cam. If you do, please make like Donnie and advise. And again, see the solicitation problem we saw before: just asking for something is not a violation of any rule that would lead to a suspension, unless you can prove that there was evidence of some agreement or proof of actual benefits obtained. Had the offer been made to Miss State and he enrolled at Miss State, there would be Hell to pay for everyone - right f-ing now!

Cecil has changed his stance at least once already about what happened, I have a hard time believing he has been forthright and fostering compliance with a powerless ncaa.

The "He's a lying sack of [censored]" theory is likely valid, but the rule does not say that merely being a lying sack of [censored] gets one suspended. One has to be a lying sack of [censored] that takes benefits or agrees to do so.

They aren't investigating a good ole boys club where no one will tattle without a warrant. This is a divided state of bama fans and a third party implicating him.

At some point they have to have a backbone and some standards.

Backbone is meaningless. Try telling a DA to convict BKB of a drug sale with only the PM to you. Yelling at him (or her) that they do not have a backbone and should convict because it really, really, really, looks like BKB should be guilty will not be a substitute for the missing proof.

And they have "standards". The problem is that the standards they have adopted have to be followed. Those standards to not lead to a BKB banning, nor should it lead to a Cam suspension, absent additional evidence.

 

[shetuck]

"Intent" is an element of any contract. Basically, there needs to be a meeting of the minds. Let's look at an example:

Let's say BP will ban someone for buying illegal drugs. Let's say you get a PM from me that offers to sell you cocaine if you come to New Orleans and have a golf weekend with Ubet and his friends. Let's say someone reads that, and so they presume your intent to buy drugs from me from my offer. Let's also say that BKB shows up in New Orleans a month later and plays golf with me and my buddies. If that is all there is to it - my offer to you - then Josh is OK even if it looks horrible. In that example, Josh is Mississippi State. BKB is the Auburn in that example...

So basically you're saying that JW = BKB?

 

[Gatorubet]

So basically you're saying that JW = BKB?

 

[BB73]

Let's say BP will ban someone for buying illegal drugs. Let's say you get a PM from me that offers to sell you cocaine if you come to New Orleans and have a golf weekend with Ubet and his friends. Let's say someone reads that, and so they presume your intent to buy drugs from me from my offer. Let's also say that BKB shows up in New Orleans a month later and plays golf with me and my buddies.

I think the BP police should get a search warrant for the dead hooker in your trunk.

The analagy of two people getting an offer and one appearing to take it isn't quite the same as one person getting two offers, committing to one while asking for extra illegal benefits, and then switching to take the other offer.

 

[Gatorubet]

I think the BP police should get a search warrant for the dead hooker in your trunk.

The analagy of two people getting an offer and one appearing to take it isn't quite the same as one person getting two offers, committing to one while asking for extra illegal benefits, and then switching to take the other offer.

Easily fixed.*

put the dead hooker in NorthshoreBuck's freezer next to the backstrap.

 

[shetuck]

I think the BP police should get a search warrant for the dead hooker in your trunk.

The analagy of two people getting an offer and one appearing to take it isn't quite the same as one person getting two offers, committing to one while asking for extra illegal benefits, and then switching to take the other offer.

Has there ever been a successful case where one team only accepts offers and the other team only makes offers during a game?

 

[billmac91]

I am unaware of any testimony of anyone that has claimed to know of a conversation between Cecil and Auburn or Cam and Auburn with the subject being $$ for Cam. If you do, please make like Donnie and advise. And again, see the solicitation problem we saw before: just asking for something is not a violation of any rule that would lead to a suspension, unless you can prove that there was evidence of some agreement or proof of actual benefits obtained. Had the offer been made to Miss State and he enrolled at Miss State, there would be Hell to pay for everyone - right f-ing now!

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5870788

According to Joe Schaad, a Mississippi State recruiter was told directly by Cam, that he wanted to go to Miss St but the money was "just too much from Auburn".

On Nov. 9, two sources who recruit for Mississippi State told ESPN of a pay-for-play scheme to gain Newton's services. The sources told ESPN that prior to Newton's commitment to Auburn, Cecil Newton told a recruiter it would take "more than a scholarship" to get his son, then in junior college, to Mississippi State, a request the source said the school would not meet.
After Newton committed to Auburn, another source said an emotional Cam Newton phoned another recruiter to express regret that he wouldn't be going to Mississippi State, stating that his father, Cecil, had chosen Auburn for him because "the money was too much."

The NCAA according to Schaad was going to interview the recruiter in question.

My point being that the SEC and NCAA have stated if Cam knew he was being shopped it was a violation. Based on Cecil already being caught in one lie, why would you believe their revised story?? If this was happening in the Big 10, I have zero doubt the player would be suspended until proof cleared him of wrongdoing.

 

[Gatorubet]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5870788

According to Joe Schaad, a Mississippi State recruiter was told directly by Cam, that he wanted to go to Miss St but the money was "just too much from Auburn". The NCAA according to Schaad was going to interview the recruiter in question.

He said that he said that he said???? Unpossible!!!!!!

The legal term for that is "not worth a [censored]". Call me when the NCAA has the recruiter confirming that Cam said it. If he does, then it is a whole new ball game.

My point being that the SEC and NCAA have stated if Cam knew he was being shopped it was a violation. Based on Cecil already being caught in one lie, why would you believe their revised story??

Sorry. Could you expand on this? I do not get you. Who is "their". I have to say, under the NCAA rule that we have been discussing, Cam's knowledge of a solicitation by Cecil would not matter, unless his knowledge goes to agreement or acceptance of benefits. Knowledge of an Auburn offer or acceptance, on the other hand, would be a different deal. His going to the Barn would be deemed his "acceptance" of the offer. So I guess I am saying that I am not sure that you are correct that "if he knew he was being shopped it was a violation." I would argue "yes" for Auburn, but "no" for Miss State, as an offer by Cecil to Miss State (and no proof of Miss State's accepting the solicitation) would not be an issue if he went to Auburn.

If this was happening in the Big 10, I have zero doubt the player would be suspended until proof cleared him of wrongdoing.

: pat pat pat: I'm sure you don't Bill. :p

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

you were saying?

Gary Wichard suspended 9 months

Wow...9 entire months. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not even an entire year. I'll have to check my calendar.

Now, I grant you that is considered real "punishment" in SEC land. Me, myself and I am, however, waiting for the NFL to actually impose a lifetime ban against any agent found to have given benefits to an NCAA player. Patiently, we wait.

 

[billmac91]

He said that he said that he said???? Unpossible!!!!!!

The legal term for that is "not worth a [censored]". Call me when the NCAA has the recruiter confirming that Cam said it. If he does, then it is a whole new ball game.


Sorry. Could you expand on this? I do not get you. Who is "their". I have to say, under the NCAA rule that we have been discussing, Cam's knowledge of a solicitation by Cecil would not matter, unless his knowledge goes to agreement or acceptance of benefits. Knowledge of an Auburn offer or acceptance, on the other hand, would be a different deal. His going to the Barn would be deemed his "acceptance" of the offer. So I guess I am saying that I am not sure that you are correct that "if he knew he was being shopped it was a violation." I would argue "yes" for Auburn, but "no" for Miss State, as an offer by Cecil to Miss State (and no proof of Miss State's accepting the solicitation) would not be an issue if he went to Auburn.



: pat pat pat: I'm sure you don't Bill. :p

So far, what from the Mississippi State side has been incorrect? Thus far the Newtons (Cecil) have already bee caught lying. Everything reported by the sources in regards to Cecil shopping his son has been confirmed.

But we'll just ignore the portion that makes Cam illegal. Not with this much money on the line anyways...

 

[Nutriaitch]

Wow...9 entire months. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not even an entire year. I'll have to check my calendar.

Now, I grant you that is considered real "punishment" in SEC land. Me, myself and I am, however, waiting for the NFL to actually impose a lifetime ban against any agent found to have given benefits to an NCAA player. Patiently, we wait.

personally, i think the guy should have been castrated.

but I'll settle for a 9 month ban.
especially considering that's 9 months longer than any other such ban that i can remember.

 

[Gatorubet]

So far, what from the Mississippi State side has been incorrect? Thus far the Newtons (Cecil) have already bee caught lying. Everything reported by the sources in regards to Cecil shopping his son has been confirmed.

While this is not a "crime", just like violating a criminal statute, Cam will be in trouble if the elements of the NCAA rule are violated. As you say that "Everything reported by the sources in regards to Cecil shopping his son has been confirmed", could you briefly list what those facts are and what is the evidence of that fact.

One rule: Someone said that someone said that someone said is not allowed i evidence.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I just do not see how you can say that and I would like to see what you come up with as far as "proven" or "confirmed" evidence.

But we'll just ignore the portion that makes Cam illegal. Not with this much money on the line anyways...

Let's say you want to convict me of drug possession. You can show that I lied about my job, my car, my dog, my girlfriend, my sports team, my bank account, and where I was earlier on the night you say I had drugs. Unless you show that I had drugs on me, none of the rest of the lying means squat. I walk. Because the essential elements of the crime of drug possession are that: 1) I have drugs in my possession, and 2) that the drugs are scheduled controlled substances made illegal by statute.

You cannot prove those two, and all of the lies I say, and all of the times I flip flop on those other issues (job, car, dog, girlfriend, sports team, bank account, whereabouts earlier) gets you absolutely nothing.

So again, briefly tell me what facts have been proven that would support a suspension under current NCAA rules?

 

[jwinslow]

The "He's a lying sack of [censored]" theory is likely valid, but the rule does not say that merely being a lying sack of [censored] gets one suspended. One has to be a lying sack of [censored] that takes benefits or agrees to do so.

Dez Bryant was ruled ineligible, largely because he lied about it

The NCAA absolutely can rule Cam ineligible. They just don't want to do so.

Let's say you want to convict me of drug possession. You can show that I lied about my job, my car, my dog, my girlfriend, my sports team, my bank account, and where I was earlier on the night you say I had drugs

Lying to a governing body should have consequences, particularly when the second version of the truth involves attempted cheating (if not more).

Unless that governing body is little more than a punchline unless someone else does their job for them beforehand.

 

[Gatorubet]

Dez Bryant was ruled ineligible, largely because he lied about it

Show me where Cam has lied. Show me where Dez' dad lying got him ineligible. My point is that Cecil can lie about anything but that which is a violation of the NCAA rules. It is likely that lying to the NCAA will get you in trouble. That is the investigating authority. I can lie to you or CNN all I want. If I lie to the FBI in an investigation I go to jail. "Lying" is not important. What you are lying about, or more importantly, who you are lying to is what matters.

The NCAA absolutely can rule Cam ineligible. They just don't want to do so. Lying to a governing body should have consequences, particularly when the second version of the truth involves attempted cheating (if not more).

1) What NCAA rule(s) has Cam violated?
2) Who has Cam lied to?
3) Your proof that there was a "lie" by Cam is what again?

Unless that governing body is little more than a punchline unless someone else does their job for them beforehand.

It does not take much to grab a pitchfork and join the rest of the crowd in attacking the Montgolfier brothers' balloon. All it takes, really, is just a misunderstanding about what the Hell is really going on and a bunch of pent up emotion. This stuff is really very basic and formal. You can only act according to the rules that govern your organization. You cannot use supposition and inference to replace actual facts. Everybody keeps doing it. I don't get why.