Yahoo, Tattoos, and tOSU (1-year bowl ban, 82 scholly limit for 3 years)

[Colvinnl]

You misread my post.

Tressel's lie wasn't about his own violation. To switch it into Pearl's situation, Tressel would have been the one to sell the memorabilia and THEN lie about it. That's what I meant by that.

But failing to disclose the players' violations when Tress received the emails was probably a violation on its own. Tress later did not come clean about his knowledge at two different opportunities (September and December 2011). It is not completely analogous to Pearl, but it is closer than I initially thought.

 

[Gatorubet]

But failing to disclose the players' violations when Tress received the emails was probably a violation on its own. .

Would love to hear from Jag on this, as he no doubt has some expertise to bring to this observation.

Sound like the NCAA self report rule may be similar to military "Honor Code" systems, where not only is it a violation to do something wrong, but it is also a separate, second violation to fail to report the first violation....if that makes any sense. So that would imply that a third violation could occur from failing to report that you violated a duty to fail to report....ad infinitum....

At some point that is just stupid.

 

[gracelhink]

Grace, I've never seen anything to confirm that Tess was interviewed by the NCAA in December. In fact, the letter from Gee states that Tressel was questioned by the institution as part of its investigation on December 16. I do not see where he EVER directly spoke with the NCAA in December. Which is a lucky thing. Not telling tOSU is bad. Lying to the NCAA when directly asked is a whole other thing.

Where the September thing fits in the NCAA's head I have no idea. I would venture a guess that it covers more "general" issues than specific question about a specific allegation. I tried to do a search of NCAA violations involving compliance certs and found nothing. Which is good for y'all I think.

Thank you for your research and legal opinion counselor!

This indeed would be extremely good news for JT if it is the fact.
The "Dec. non disclosure to the NCAA" accusation was much more troublesome than the Sept. certificate.
In a reasonable scenario in Sept 2010, JT could have:
1. initiated an inquiry of the two (TP and DP) whose names were linked with the memorabilia identified in the private emails,
2. heard plausible reason why they were not "sold," and
3. in good conscience stated that there was no "evidence" of violation or compelling reason to belive a potential violation of eligibility.

 

[heisman]

It's more like the difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder. What Pearl did was much more egregious but they both lied to the NCAA to cover up violations they knew existed.

Not even close. If you want to get technical, Tress is not even a witness. He was given what amounts to third party hearsay evidence, which if he didn't disclose in a court of law, he would not even be subject to perjury.

Pearl was actually committing the violations, asked for the parents to cover them up, and then lied to cover them up himself.

 

[Gatorubet]

Not even close. If you want to get technical, Tress is not even a witness. He was given what amounts to third party hearsay evidence, which if he didn't disclose in a court of law, he would not even be subject to perjury.

Pearl was actually committing the violations, asked for the parents to cover them up, and then lied to cover them up himself.

It is perhaps better to leave the criminal analogy totally out of the discussion.

Edit: Not saying I have a problem with you posting. I was more thinking about Jax' criminal analogy post to which you responded. Just that there is no criminal perjury- etc, and it is better to stay with the actual NCAA rules when we can. This is all civil stuff, and even a direct lie is not a crime in any way.

 

[Colvinnl]

Would love to hear from Jag on this, as he no doubt has some expertise to bring to this observation.

Sound like the NCAA self report rule may be similar to military "Honor Code" systems, where not only is it a violation to do something wrong, but it is also a separate, second violation to fail to report the first violation....if that makes any sense. So that would imply that a third violation could occur from failing to report that you violated a duty to fail to report....ad infinitum....

At some point that is just stupid.

Well the Ohio State letter to the NCAA admits that Tress's violation occurred between on April 2, 2010 and January 15, 2011. Thus, the University has already conceded that Tressel committed a violation in April when he received the information "that concerned potential violations of NCAA preferential treatment legislation with student-athletes on the football team" and "failed to notify institutional officials of [the] information."

It seems Ohio State would prefer this to be viewed as a single continuous violation. Cutting against that is the September certification, which is a specific request by the NCAA as to whether Tressel knew of any violations, and any possible questions that the NCAA asked of Tressel in December 2010. Arguably, the NCAA could view the latter acts (or failures to act) as separate violations because they are different in nature, i.e., lying or obstructing rather than admitting. I am not passing judgment as to which view is correct.

 

[Colvinnl]

It is perhaps better to leave the criminal analogy totally out of the discussion.

Yeup

 

[Jaxbuck]

It is perhaps better to leave the criminal analogy totally out of the discussion.

Edit: Not saying I have a problem with you posting. I was more thinking about Jax' criminal analogy post to which you responded. Just that there is no criminal perjury- etc, and it is better to stay with the actual NCAA rules when we can. This is all civil stuff, and even a direct lie is not a crime in any way.

Yeup

Completely agree. Sorry for feeding into it.

No crime was committed by Tressel or Pearl. Both violated rule 10.1 and it remains to be seen how similarly the the NCAA views the two cases.

Fair enough?

 

[buxfan4life]

Well the Ohio State letter to the NCAA admits that Tress's violation occurred between on April 2, 2010 and January 15, 2001.

I know that this whole thing is disturbing, but I don't think it actually bent the spacetime continuum. :p

 

[gracelhink]

Completely agree. Sorry for feeding into it.

No crime was committed by Tressel or Pearl. Both violated rule 10.1 and it remains to be seen how similarly the the NCAA views the two cases.

Fair enough?

I believe if Gator's research and legal opinion are accurate, there is a significant difference between:

case a) the non disclosure of hearsay of a potential violation of SA eligibility to a school's compliance department, and

case b) making false statements before the NCAA committee on investigation about violations he himself committed.

 

[Coqui]

But failing to disclose the players' violations when Tress received the emails was probably a violation on its own. Tress later did not come clean about his knowledge at two different opportunities (September and December 2011). It is not completely analogous to Pearl, but it is closer than I initially thought.

Which in that case you had two major violations Pearl did whereas Tressel only did one.

 

[ginn421]

Pearl also has other past official NCAA violations on his personal record, while JT has had players receive NCAA sanctions before, but none actually attributed to himself (correct me if I'm wrong). Significant difference if that is in fact correct.

 

[Colvinnl]

Which in that case you had two major violations Pearl did whereas Tressel only did one.

OSU has conceded that Tress committed a violation in April 2010. I think the question is whether he then lied in September and/or December 2010. If so, my guess is the NCAA will consider that to be a separate violation. If he just continued to fail to disclose, maybe they will consider it to be a single violation.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

He signed a document swearing he knew of no violations when he in fact did.

I've signed hundreds of official government documents that didn't include "I swear that the following is true" or something like that. And a government or legal document is the only type that can hold you to the level of "swearing" to vailidity of the statement. Just because he may have signed a piece of paper stating he didn't know of any violations at the specified timeframe doesn't mean he "swore" to it...

 

[Gatorubet]

I've signed hundreds of official government documents that didn't include "I swear that the following is true" or something like that. And a government or legal document is the only type that can hold you to the level of "swearing" to vailidity of the statement. Just because he may have signed a piece of paper stating he didn't know of any violations at the specified timeframe doesn't mean he "swore" to it...

Good point Mili. It would depend upon the verbiage in the document, obviously. And again, there is no "perjury" in signing a document that sets forth false facts in a document in the purely legal sense/criminal sense.

You might have committed "fraud" in some circumstances if the other party relied upon your actions, but a document that has to be signed as a part of tOSU's voluntary participation in the NCAA - and its agreement to abide by its rules - does not fit in an easy "fraud" box. I do not see how the NCAA relied upon it to its detriment, unless the tat-five agreement could be said to have relied upon it in determining that outcome.

I have not seen a copy of the certification, or any other schools certification for that matter. I'll try to find out if it is a standard form that is submitted yearly (like I assume) and try to find the wording.