After hearing Mark Emmert take umbrage at Dennis Dodd for Dodd’s criticism of Emmert’s job performance, I’m not surprised by the professional tack the NCAA’s enforcement staff has taken in response to Miami’s claims in trying to get the Nevin Shapiro matter dismissed.
The NCAA’s enforcement staff responded to Miami’s claims and harsh criticisms of the NCAA by lashing back, claiming that UM is “grasping at straws” in an attempt to disqualify members of the enforcement team and that it is “offended” by Miami’s insinuations in regards to the case.
Those comments were made in a 42-page document that Jonathan Duncan, the Interim Vice President of Enforcement, sent to Britton Banowsky, the chairman of the Committee on Infractions in regards to the Nevin Shapiro scandal at Miami.
“Offended”, eh? Well, there’s more than enough of that going around in this pig of an investigation.
Not that much of that should matter, according to Duncan. After all, Miami’s already gotten its “sorry, dude”.
“The enforcement staff ‘self-reported’ the [Maria Elena] Perez [attorney for Shapiro who was paid by the NCAA after doing that work, though she contends that she never actually was employed by the association] issue and then cooperated diligently with internal NCAA staff members and the Cadwalader firm to fully identify and disclose information related to the Perez issue. After an external investigation, those individuals found to have had culpability in the matter have been held accountable, and as a united enforcement staff, we deeply regret, have apologized for and are embarrassed by the events and circumstances,” Duncan wrote. “Nevertheless, we will not stand idly by when meritless, personal attacks are launched under the broad brush stroke of ‘enforcement staff misconduct.’
“… Overall, the enforcement staff believes that the institution is again grasping at straws in an attempt to disqualify members of the enforcement team with the most knowledge about the case. Not only are these personal attacks based on no evidence that would support the removal of Barnhart and Hannah from the case, they are also not a basis for dismissal of the case in its entirety.”
See, they’re embarrassed, Miami. Now take your medicine.
That statement glides by the fact that the staff has had to retreat further in the face of those “meritless, personal attacks”.
The AP first reported Friday that the enforcement staff made one concession that Miami wanted, that being the NCAA’s decision to throw Wright’s testimony out of the notice of allegations.
Miami argued that some things Wright was asked about by investigators in February 2012 stemmed from information the NCAA collected through depositions that Perez conducted under subpoena in Shapiro’s bankruptcy proceeding. The NCAA does not have subpoena power.
So a few mistakes were made here and there. Broken eggs, omelets, etc., etc. Besides, the staff isn’t really convinced that the Committee on Infractions has dismissal powers anyway, so what can you do? Which leads to the topper:
“Based on the foregoing, the enforcement staff believes that the majority of the parties’ assertions in their motions to dismiss are largely based on assumptions, false accusations, misleading statements and meritless claims. However, the enforcement staff would first defer to the judgment of the Committee on Infractions regarding whether it has the authority to act to dismiss a case prior to a hearing. If the Committee on Infractions determines that it has such authority, the enforcement staff believes that the only legitimate argument raised for such action relates to the potential violation of confidentiality involving the public release of Cadwalader report. [Emphasis added.] Nevertheless, even if the Committee on Infractions believes that a violation occurred in that regard, the enforcement staff is uncertain as to any demonstration of harm that would merit dismissal of the case.”
If there had been any harm, I suppose another apology would be in order.