Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CL82, post: 3994781, member: 44"] [I][B]Here, however, when completing the questionnaire and when interviewed by the enforcement staff, the assistant coach did not acknowledge that his conduct ran afoul of core principles and standards of conduct. As such, the assistant coach's failure to acknowledge such conduct establishes further violations. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1, the violations are Level I because they seriously undermine and threaten the integrity of the collegiate model.[/B] See Bylaw 19.1.1-(d) (identifying individual unethical or dishonest conduct as an example of Level I behaviors). The COI regularly concludes that Level I violations occur when individuals provide false or misleading information. See Georgia Institute of Technology (2019) (concluding that the assistant coach committed Level I violations when he lied in an interview and denied involvement in the underlying violations and attempted to persuade a student-athlete to lie) and University of the Pacific (2017) (concluding that Level I violations occurred when a head coach and assistant coach were untruthful in their interviews). [B]The assistant coach's actions in filling out the questionnaire and his later denials during his interview were false and misleading. As such, Level I violations occurred.[/B][/I] [URL='https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/infractions/decisions/JUn2021D1INF_CreightonUniversityPublicInfractionsDecision.pdf']Link to decision[/URL] Quoted text is on page 19. [ATTACH type="full" alt="1624396213993.png"]68150[/ATTACH] [I]Regarding Bylaw 19.9.3-(e), the panel's analysis is also uncomplicated. [B]This assistant coach's conduct established multiple unethical conduct violations, including his provision of false and misleading information on two occasions. [/B]The panel is not indifferent to the frequent arguments that application of this factor results in "double dipping" or holding a party accountable for the underlying conduct and then aggravating the party's case for the same conduct. That, however, is how the NCAA membership has constructed its infractions program. The membership was intentional in identifying certain behaviors that were unacceptable and the mere presence of a violation could result in the application of an aggravating factor. Unethical conduct is one of those behaviors. The COI has regularly applied Bylaw 19.9.3-(e) in similar circumstances where underlying conduct established unethical conduct violations. See USC, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina and Alabama.[/I] Above quote from page 27. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach