Something doesn't add up with regards to Reggie's Impala.
The COI report says one thing but McNair's response says something else entirely...
This is form the COI Page #5
(4) During a telephone conversation in late 2004, student-athlete 1 informed agency partner A that he (student-athlete 1) was embarrassed to drive his current vehicle, a pick-up truck, and wanted a different vehicle. Agency partner A agreed to provide the cash to purchase a vehicle. A short while later, in December 2004, student-athlete 1 located a vehicle he wanted, and agency partner A gave student-athlete 1's stepfather several thousand dollars in cash for a down payment on the vehicle. Student-athlete 1 later contacted agency partner A to request additional money needed to purchase wheel rims for the vehicle. Agency partner A then drove from San Diego to Los Angeles and gave student-athlete 1 an additional several thousand dollars in cash. Approximately one week later, agency partner A gave student-athlete 1 another sizable cash payment, which the student-athlete used for a car alarm and audio system.
This is from McNair's Response Page 8 of the PDF...
(4) During a telephone conversation in February 2005, [Redacted] informed Lake that [Redacted] was embarrassed to drive his truck and needed a different vehicle. Lake agreed to provide the cash to purchase a vehicle. A couple of days later, [Redacted] located a vehicle to purchase, and Lake gave Lamar $13,000 cash. [Redacted] called Lake from the dealership to thank Lake for the money and to request additional money needed to purchase rims for the vehicle. Lake then drove from San Diego to Los Angeles and gave [Redacted] approximately $5,000 cash. Approximately one week later, Lake gave an additional $3,500 in cash, which [Redacted] used to pay for a new alarm and audio system for the vehicle. [Bylaw 1 2 .3 . 1 .2]
So, who is right?
The COI's info is ambiguous in its time line and amounts where in McNair's response the time line and amounts are a little more detailed. This information came from somewhere. McNair's attorney would not make that date up because McNair has nothing to do with the car. The COI references "December 2004" numerous times when discussing the purchase of the vehicle. Yet they offer no concrete proof other than the car registration form filed with the school that states that the car was purchased in Dec. 2004....
Reggie claims he got the money form his parents but they aren't cooperating. Lake and his family can't produce records for even a bank withdrawal.
If the car was purchased in Dec 2004 Reggie would have had to fill the disclosure form prior to starting the spring semester. But if the car was purchased after the semester started in 2005 then that could explain why there's no disclosure form file prior to Aug 2005 as the COI report indicates.
This kind of matters.
If the call about the money for the Impala didn't happen until February 2005 instead of December 2004, like the COI's reports shows. That would then mean that Reggie was eligible for the the UCLA game AND the BCS Title Game. If we are to go by the garbage that Paul Dee set forth that USC was banned from post-season play for TWO bowl games because Bush played in TWO bowl games while ineligible then wouldn't one think if they got the date wrong here that Bush was NOT in fact ineligible?
The COI says one date, December 2004, in the report they released on June 10. Yet McNair's response, dated January 4, 2010, says another date. Considering that the enforcement staff and COI made some serious mistakes in their questioning of McNair WRT the dates of a particular phone call, not to mention their spoon feeding of Lake in his testimony it is entirely possible that they could have screwed this up.
Maybe NCAA Spokesperson Stacey Osburn can explain the discrepancy in the dates...