Boatright's Lawyer releases statement

[freescooter]

Per Nocera's latest article, you also appear to be wrong.

Why did the NCAA bother to release yet another statement? In any other case, they make their ruling don't say a damn word. Why do they seem to be taking this so seriously?

The Boatright's won't sue, and appear to have a lousy case. But I would love to see them do it, just to see how much sh!+ would come out in discovery regarding Emmert's involvement and personal issues with UConn.

We disagree on Nocera. He has made perfectly clear his distaste for the NCAA and to simply say the NCAA dislikes Rose without explaining his history with Memphis, indeed to practically admit that it came as a shock to find the NCAA has problems with Rose, suggests to me that he didn't do his homework originally and is now trying to pretend it doesn't matter. As far as Tomosett's statement, talk about misrepresenting things. Nowhere does the NCAA release say one single word about anyone trying to steer the kid to UCONN. Not one. and there's nothing wrong with flying a kid to California for a weekend of "training?" and because Nocera doesn't think Boatright is a potential pro, he isn't trying to influence the kid? LOL, Of course he would know more about basketball skills than a coach/brother of the NBA star...after all, he's a newspaper columnist. they are all knowing.

Look, this is a sad case of a kid getting taken advantage of by people who truly should know better but who figured, as Rose has a history of doing, that the rules don't apply to them.

 

[prankster]

As far as Tomosett's statement, talk about misrepresenting things. Nowhere does the NCAA release say one single word about anyone trying to steer the kid to UCONN.

The foundation of the NCAA's interest in any family's finances is the possibility that improper inducement is used as an enticement to steer the young man (any young man) to a particular school.

So your statement, while technically true, leans to the specifics. It misses the overarching reason the NCAA uses to justify their interest/investigation.

Tomosett is not incorrect to bring this up.

 

[CL82]

Another thing.

The lawyer is saying that the NCAA "said" they would keep things confidential?

And what? He took them at their word?

That's why God created papers and pens - so that a lawyer wouldn't have to try to get us all to believe that he committed malpractice by accepting an oral promise of confidentiality.

I noticed that language as well. Lawyers tend to use precise langauge. "Said" is an interesting word choice. Not "agreed", not "promised", not even "represented" just "said".

 

[Excalibur]

I noticed that language as well. Lawyers tend to use precise langauge. "Said" is an interesting word choice. Not "agreed", not "promised", not even "represented" just "said".

He used "clear understanding", not "said".

 

[CL82]

He used "clear understanding", not "said".

I stand corrected. Still understanding is different than representation or agreement. Me thinks the attorney either missed this point or didn't consider it a priority.

 

[BlueMAB]

As I said in another thread, Mom tried to get as many bennies as she could off her son's success. It's sad, but it happens. The lawyer's statement is a classic. He blasts the NCAA for making the information public, complains about some wording (did they give her a car or pay for a car?) but doesn't refute the major findings, namely that she took over $8,000 in cash from Rose and someone else (probably another Rose, but not certain). The statement is simply an effort to obfuscate.

Well, you and the NCAA have a few things in common.

No proof, no credibility, and a guilty until proven innocent disposition.

 

[BlueMAB]

To summarize:

Boatright had to sit games because his mother couldn't afford to go with him on his official visits, because someone who is not an agent, does not have interest in steering him to any specific school, and had a decade long relationship with the family helped pay for those trips and make some car payments for his mother.

And Ryan Boatright has to repay $4,500 when by the NCAA's own admission is the least culpable, and they are unable to show he got a single dollar.

What a joke.

 

[progrocks]

To summarize:

Boatright had to sit games because his mother couldn't afford to go with him on his official visits, because someone who is not an agent, does not have interest in steering him to any specific school, and had a decade long relationship with the family helped pay for those trips and make some car payments for his mother.

And Ryan Boatright has to repay $4,500 when by the NCAA's own admission is the least culpable, and they are unable to show he got a single dollar.

What a joke.

Well, Ryan can get a job to pay......wait......what is that you said..........He is not allowed to get a job right now and the NCAA does not pay him even though he participates in creating large amounts of revenue for it?????? It makes total sense!!!

Also, most people get jobs because they know people, but the people Ryan knows would make that a NCAA violation it seems. This is getting quite tricky, isnt it.

 

[freescooter]

To summarize:

Boatright had to sit games because his mother couldn't afford to go with him on his official visits, because someone who is not an agent, does not have interest in steering him to any specific school, and had a decade long relationship with the family helped pay for those trips and make some car payments for his mother.

And Ryan Boatright has to repay $4,500 when by the NCAA's own admission is the least culpable, and they are unable to show he got a single dollar.

What a joke.

You know what? thousands of kids and families have to make that kind of decision every year. We did withour kids. Yes, we can go to UMaine. No, we can't go to
southern California becasue we don't have the cash to fly us out there. Ok, we can look at Penn.that is drivable. Maybe we'll go to South Carolina While we're visiting Uncle Joe in Florida. Families make thse choices all the time. I'd wager that this week alone 10,000parents said to kids well you can apply to th University of but you have to do it sight unseen because we can't afford to take you there. And heck, Ryan got to go for free which makes it easier by a long shot. I just can't get all weepy about this. Sit down with your kid and make a choice. Don't cheat so you can see 4 or 5 different places.

Finally, to ignore the Roses history is just not legitimate.

 

[UConn990411]

Well, you and the NCAA have a few things in common.

No proof, no credibility, and a ****ty guilty until proven innocent disposition.

With free, I think it's more his desire to be the board contrarian than anything else.

 

[Kitaman]

What I am trying to connect is the 'immunity' reference. Was that for testifying or something else. and who was to be protected and from what? Haven't heard that word used in an NCAA investigation unless it was criminal (e.g. point shaving). Of course this isn't criminal but a strange reference nonetheless.

Can someone clarify the immunity reference?

 

[Prezidint]

He used "clear understanding", not "said".

Same thing. In essence, his argument is that the NCAA orally promised him something.
1st week of law school they teach you to get it in writing.
Malpractice if true.

 

[BlueMAB]

You know what? thousands of kids and families have to make that kind of decision every year. We did withour kids. Yes, we can go to UMaine. No, we can't go to
southern California becasue we don't have the cash to fly us out there. Ok, we can look at Penn.that is drivable. Maybe we'll go to South Carolina While we're visiting Uncle Joe in Florida. Families make thse choices all the time. I'd wager that this week alone 10,000parents said to kids well you can apply to th University of but you have to do it sight unseen because we can't afford to take you there. And heck, Ryan got to go for free which makes it easier by a long shot. I just can't get all weepy about this. Sit down with your kid and make a choice. Don't cheat so you can see 4 or 5 different places.

Finally, to ignore the Roses history is just not legitimate.

If a family friend who isn't an agent, and wasn't trying to push your kid to a certain school decided to pay for you to fly to California you'd take the money, and there wouldn't be anything wrong with it.

To punish Ryan Boatright, who by the NCAA's own admission was least culpable, because the Roses have a history, is borderline criminal.

They won't punish Calipari, but they'll make Boatright sit out. You're defending the indefensible.

 

[prankster]

Same thing. In essence, his argument is that the NCAA orally promised him something.
1st week of law school they teach you to get it in writing.
Malpractice if true.

So...you are saying that, in an "informal", "extra-legal" investigation, when your attorney establishes a "clear understanding" that the financial information (than cannot in any legal way be compelled) shall all be held "confidential"....We all need to understand that the unprincipled liars that comprise the NCAA cannot be trusted to adhere to their agreements....

Got it!

Note to everyone else who should ever deal with these extortionists....They really should all be in jail. They have no principles and they should all be in prison. Don't believe a word they say, even if you do get it in writing.

OH...and BTW....Our universities and colleges all voluntarily associate with these bastards....

 

[Drumguy]

Nocera covered it in the Op-ed of the Times again. He's outraged and not letting go. He's got a lot of good points about the discrimination against poorer people.