USC Response
by bwren on Jun 15, 2010 9:00 AM PDT
Email
Print
I've been reading the USC response. Just thought I would glance through it, but it turned out to be an interesting read. If you look at nothing else in this entire story, look at pages 37-44 of the response. This is about the 2:30 phone call between Lake and McNair. Not only did the NCAA accept at face value accusations from Lake that were obviously fabricated, but they actually added their own information to the report that wasn't even in the testimony from Lake.
In their questioning, the NCAA accidentally said that McNair called Lake. In response, Lake made up a whole story about how McNair called him asking that he not implicate USC. In reality, Lake called McNair asking that he convince Reggie to sign him as his agent. Lake obviously made up the entire content of the phone call based on the accidental bad information from the committee. Not only did the committee accept that obviously false story, but they even added their own detail to it.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors.
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
yeah take a look at that youtube
video, its linked in another thread. First lake denied talking to McNair at all. The 2:30 call was conducted in the course of McNair meeting Bush at a Hollywood club. Numerous calls exchanged between bush and McNair, then the Lake to McNair. Lake was with Bush at the club. I suspect they were trying to give McNair directions or discussing the local talent. It may have been something as simple as Bush having Lake give directions to where they were., while he was otherwise occupied. I don’t know if your from LA but coordinating a meet up on Sunset often involves advice on parking and multiple questions like “will my car get towed here?” at least with my dumb friends.
Correct
The one minute calls were easily explained by coordinating location on an evening when Reggie was entertaining a recruit.
The 2:30 call was between the 2006 Rose Bowl and the day that Reggie met with propsective agents on campus. Lake called McNair wanting him to convince Reggie to sign with Lake. It’s no wonder that McNair didn’t remember the call because he would have been probably hearing from various agents around that time.
Whether or not you believe McNair’s account, there is no reason to believe Lake’s story either. In fact, Lake proved his story unreliable with his fabrications. The NCAA really makes themselves look bad by not letting any USC representative in the room during that interview. They could have addressed Lake’s lies right there and gotten it on record.
but then you might not get the result you want
if you are the NCAA. Look at the process itself, its not like an arbitration or a mediation — heck its not even a military tribunal. The person who decides your fate is the one who prosecutes the violation. They created a narrative and got an ex-con to say whatever they wanted.
Look I take a hard line in most of my posting but I acknowledge that this whole thing is shady. I believe that Reggie was taking money, he should be punished, where I draw the line is with the idea that a University should be punished on the contradictory testimony of a convicted felon. I also take issue with the fact that USC is being singled out for punishment based on the actions of one football player, away from campus.
Completely agreed
No question that Reggie and his parents were taking money they shouldn’t have been. In reading the USC response it’s also pretty clear that they did not cooperate as much as they could have during the investigation. It sucks that the NCAA has no way to punish them directly but can only impose punishment on a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the whole affair. Unfortunately, you can’t argue against some sanctions for Reggie being ineligible for 2005.
There is no excuse though for the absolute sloppiness in the NCAA investigation and report. Regardless of whether you’re for or against USC, I honestly can’t see how anyone can read this not find the NCAA astoundingly out of line. Far from meeting any kind of legal definition of proof, many of their findings don’t even fit a common sense level of raising a suspicion of guilt.
Well said
I have exactly zero problems with the forfeits (although I feel bad for the other 84 guys on the team who did nothing wrong) in the end that doesn’t even mean much (take the BCS trophy if they like, the AP already says they won’t re-vote). Probation — probably justified, when people screw up something has to happen, and this was a screw up by the USC athletic department. Personally I am opposed to using scholarship limits as a way to punish any school (I’m opposed to the limits themselves but that’s another issue), it just hurts kids who are trying to play college ball (and get an education) that had not part in the violations. Additionally the bowl ban punishes only current athletes and fans who have nothing to do with Bush. I say take his Heisman, he deserves to lose it, but USC should have received a punishment in line with Oklahoma’s from a couple of years back, not this nonsense.
WELCOME TO LAWYERFEST 2010!
Seriously, if I ever need representation I’m calling ilium!
Still LOCO after all these years
All hail Augustus Kiffin!
M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT
There is only one way to resolve this
The USC football team should play a game against the infractions committee. If USC wins then the sanctions get dialed down. If the infractions committee wins, then we accept all the sanctions.
Does surprise anyone else
That the report was written in Dec. 2009 yet at ebbottom of page 166 it talks about the “former” head football coach?
PC left in january…makes you think a bit…I will leave it at that.
Joey picked up on this…
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
Could it have been updated?
Maybe the first version of the report used “head football coach”, and the “former” was added later.
I have no evidence of that – just guessing. And unlike the NCAA, I will clearly identify when I’m completely guessing as opposed to when I have clear evidence of an opinion.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
