Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Watchdog, post: 3541436, member: 10325"] So, if the lawyer didn't make the effort to submit any new or meaningful information, how does he justify his billings? 1. Call the decision "biased". 2. Claim the NCAA has repeatedly shown its #1 priority is to protect UConn. 3. Prepare statement (for future release) about the bias that was shown by the arbitrator after that decision is rendered. The NCAA said the appeals committee upheld Ollie's punishment "because [B]he included few or no arguments regarding overturning this penalty[/B] and failed to demonstrate that the Committee on Infractions abused its discretion by prescribing the penalty." Ollie's attorney, Jacques Parenteau, issued a statement to ESPN after the ruling. "While we are [B]not surprised that the NCCA[/B] Infractions Appeals Committee [B]would simply rubber stamp the original, biased decision[/B], it is disgraceful this [B]committee refused to consider the ample evidence produced by counsel for Kevin Ollie showing that witnesses had lied,[/B]" he said. "Throughout this process the [B]NCAA has repeatedly demonstrated that its number one priority is to protect UConn[/B], its member, and will eagerly do so at the expense of Kevin Ollie's rights [/QUOTE]