NCAA Responds to Oklahoma State Comments on Infractions Committee

donnieh said:

---

"The NCAA agreed that Lamont Evans acted alone and for his own benefit. The NCAA also agreed that OSU did not benefit in recruiting, commit a recruiting violation, did not play an ineligible player and did not display a lack of institutional control."

The NCAA agreed that Oklahoma State did not benefit in any way and that Evans acted ALONE. The FBI called us a victim.

So according to the NCAA Oklahoma State did NOT benefit in any way, did NOT benefit in recruiting, did NOT commit a recruiting violation, and did NOT lack institutional control, Evans acted ALONE, Oklahoma State was a victim…..why was there any punishment handed out at all?

---

please see post immediately above.... it is clearly explained there by the reporter from Tucson and by the NCAA.

a level 1 violation occurred.

Also, we penalized ourselves because of the known violations and the expected penalties. We penalized ourselves or Carroll would have played illegally. We thought our self-imposed penalties would be sufficient, but they were not. The punishment was always coming - the severity was the only thing being disputed.

Arizona banned themselves, and are hoping that will be enough for them, but they have many other violations, we'll find out soon enough.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Joe Khatib said:

---

It doesn't matter how much the NCAA bloviates, the bottom line is what will the penalties against Kansas look like when compared to OSU, if they skate then the NCAA is an illegitimate organization where rules are not applied equally or fairly.

---

and if KU is punished worse, then statements like these were premature and childish.

---

Joe Khatib said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Joe Khatib said:

---

It doesn't matter how much the NCAA bloviates, the bottom line is what will the penalties against Kansas look like when compared to OSU, if they skate then the NCAA is an illegitimate organization where rules are not applied equally or fairly.

---

and if KU is punished worse, then statements like these were premature and childish.

---

---

Please spare me, NCAA is on borrowed time and thanks to Sankey and the SEC will be replaced with a different type of Governing Body.

Joe Khatib said:

---

Please spare me, NCAA is on borrowed time and thanks to Sankey and the SEC will be replaced with a different type of Governing Body.

---

quite possibly... it's been around for a long time. Hopefully it won't end up being a "be careful what you ask for" moment.

"The NCAA was founded in 1906 to protect young people from the dangerous and exploitive athletics practices of the time," so states the National Collegiate Athletic Association on its official website.

During the 1905 season alone, 18 college and amateur players died during games. In response to public outcry, Theodore Roosevelt, an unabashed fan of the sport, gathered 13 football representatives at the White House for two meetings at which those in attendance agreed on reforms to improve safety. What would later become known as the NCAA was formed shortly after on the heels of this unifying safety agreement.

It's mission has certainly changed over time. If the SEC has any say-so in a new governing body, then we're all in trouble... IMHO

The NCAA handed out punishment because it is FOS and was trying to save face due to the FBI sting showing they are inept, incompetent and about to be history. They have been a joke for decades and not done their job primarily because they are obsolete and did not evolve with the huge amount of money in college athletics. Their insinuation that OSU officials are less than honest is BS. The members of the committees dealing with this, called out by name by Boynton, are public information. They are upset that a member institution used the appeals process to show them the facts and did not just bend over for a good one. I salute them with my middle finger.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Was a ban too harsh of a penalty for Evans refusal to participate.... I don't know. It seems like it is, but I can't come up with another penalty that would establish their intent to enforce cooperation.

---

And just how could OSU force Evans to cooperate? He had already been fired, pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe, and served 3 months in prison. Chad Weiberg stated they asked the NCAA what OSU should have done differently and didn't receive an answer.

Here's an analogy:
Suppose you own a manufacturing business and one of your top engineers accepts bribes to reveal certain trade secrets. When the scheme comes to light, the employee is fired, prosecuted, pleads guilty and spends time in prison. Later the IRS comes calling to investigate whether income tax was due because of the scheme. Your former employee refuses to cooperate with the IRS, so they prosecute your company and levy hefty tax penalties on the basis that your former employee refused to cooperate.

In what universe is this fair? How does this punish the criminal? And, most importantly, what does this do to prevent the same crime from happening to someone else?

SiliconPrairie said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Was a ban too harsh of a penalty for Evans refusal to participate.... I don't know. It seems like it is, but I can't come up with another penalty that would establish their intent to enforce cooperation.

---

And just how could OSU force Evans to cooperate? He had already been fired, pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe, and served 3 months in prison. Chad Weiberg stated they asked the NCAA what OSU should have done differently and didn't receive an answer.

Here's an analogy:
Suppose you own a manufacturing business and one of your top engineers accepts bribes to reveal certain trade secrets. When the scheme comes to light, the employee is fired, prosecuted, pleads guilty and spends time in prison. Later the IRS comes calling to investigate whether income tax was due because of the scheme. Your former employee refuses to cooperate with the IRS, so they prosecute your company and levy hefty tax penalties on the basis that your former employee refused to cooperate.

In what universe is this fair? How does this punish the criminal? And, most importantly, what does this do to prevent the same crime from happening to someone else?

---

I'm not gonna play.... that's a silly analogy. Taxes are based on revenue, not on secrets or on bribes.

I never said it was fair.... which begs the question, fair to whom? Fair to OSU or fair to the sanctity of the process? I'm not debating the penalty, I already said I thought it was too harsh.... but there is a higher consideration that too many choose to ignore.

I already said that OSU did all that the could, and that it wasn't enough. Bottom line is that the school is responsible, which was the ruling.

What more could OSU do? Get Evans to talk... maybe? (IMO, something more fishy occured, but it never came to light - but that is simply my opinion, based on what transpired)

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Taxes are based on revenue, not on secrets or on bribes.

---

A bribe is revenue to the person taking the bribe. Study your history...when the FBI couldn't convict organized crime bosses for their primary crimes, they went after them for income tax evasion.

The punishment of innocent players and coaches that did NOTHING WRONG and unless you believe in clairvoyance, our administration knew nothing about, plus the FBI calling Oklahoma State a "victim" of Lamont Evans' actions, shouldn't have included a postseason ban.

Guilt by association with zero culpability is what they adjudicated and that is entirely unprecedented and simply unjust!

If the facts were looked at and there was no violation by coaches, players, no lack of Institutional Control, and no competitive advantage achieved then the whole process takes on the tenor of a kangaroo court with a preconceived agenda against the school void of fairness.

PistolD said:

---

The punishment of innocent players and coaches that did NOTHING WRONG and unless you believe in clairvoyance, our administration knew nothing about, plus the FBI calling Oklahoma State a "victim" of Lamont Evans' actions, shouldn't have included a postseason ban.

Guilt by association with zero culpability is what they adjudicated and that is entirely unprecedented and simply unjust!

If the facts were looked at and there was no violation by coaches, players, no lack of Institutional Control, and no competitive advantage achieved then the whole process takes on the tenor of a kangaroo court with a preconceived agenda against the school void of fairness.

---

Evan was indeed a coach, who committed a level-1 violation while working at OSU.

why is this dead horse still being beaten? The school is responsible, that is the rule.

SiliconPrairie said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Taxes are based on revenue, not on secrets or on bribes.

---

A bribe is revenue to the person taking the bribe. Study your history...when the FBI couldn't convict organized crime bosses for their primary crimes, they went after them for income tax evasion.

---

you just made that up, didn't you?

Here is what Investopedia says: (unless you have another definition)

Tax Treatment of Bribes

The United States prohibits bribes as being recorded for tax purposes because they stifle the democratic process, encourage unethical behavior, and conflict with the principles of freedom and equality. Although most developed nations have practices similar to the United States, some developing and a few developed nations allow bribes to be tax deductible.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

SiliconPrairie said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Taxes are based on revenue, not on secrets or on bribes.

---

A bribe is revenue to the person taking the bribe. Study your history...when the FBI couldn't convict organized crime bosses for their primary crimes, they went after them for income tax evasion.

---

you just made that up, didn't you?

Here is what Investopedia says: (unless you have another definition)

Tax Treatment of Bribes

The United States prohibits bribes as being recorded for tax purposes because they stifle the democratic process, encourage unethical behavior, and conflict with the principles of freedom and equality. Although most developed nations have practices similar to the United States, some developing and a few developed nations allow bribes to be tax deductible.

---

Paying a bribe is not deductible as an expense.
Receiving a bribe is required to be included in taxable income.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

SiliconPrairie said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Taxes are based on revenue, not on secrets or on bribes.

---

A bribe is revenue to the person taking the bribe. Study your history...when the FBI couldn't convict organized crime bosses for their primary crimes, they went after them for income tax evasion.

---

you just made that up, didn't you?

Here is what Investopedia says: (unless you have another definition)

Tax Treatment of Bribes

The United States prohibits bribes as being recorded for tax purposes because they stifle the democratic process, encourage unethical behavior, and conflict with the principles of freedom and equality. Although most developed nations have practices similar to the United States, some developing and a few developed nations allow bribes to be tax deductible.

---

Nope, I didn't make anything up. We were talking about bribes received as income (revenue) and you quoted a website regarding deductibility of bribes paid.

Since you prefer facts over opinion, I'll quote from the Internal Revenue Service, Publication 525 (for 2020 returns), Taxable and Nontaxable Income, Page 31. It's remarkably simple, for an IRS rule:

"Bribes. If you receive a bribe, include it in your income."

Trust me, Cali, if you received a bribe in 2020, you had best report it to the IRS.

SiliconPrairie said:

---

Nope, I didn't make anything up. We were talking about bribes received as income (revenue) and you quoted a website regarding deductibility of bribes paid.

Since you prefer facts over opinion, I'll quote from the Internal Revenue Service, Publication 525 (for 2020 returns), Taxable and Nontaxable Income, Page 31. It's remarkably simple, for an IRS rule:

"Bribes. If you receive a bribe, include it in your income."

Trust me, Cali, if you received a bribe in 2020, you had best report it to the IRS.

---

..... bribes are illegal, so be sure and report all illegal activity on your tax filings.... Seriously?

so you're telling us that Evans went to jail for 11 federal counts of tax evasion? Bull*****

If he had only included it in his tax returns then none of this would have happened to OSU? Bull*****

.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

SiliconPrairie said:

---

Nope, I didn't make anything up. We were talking about bribes received as income (revenue) and you quoted a website regarding deductibility of bribes paid.

Since you prefer facts over opinion, I'll quote from the Internal Revenue Service, Publication 525 (for 2020 returns), Taxable and Nontaxable Income, Page 31. It's remarkably simple, for an IRS rule:

"Bribes. If you receive a bribe, include it in your income."

Trust me, Cali, if you received a bribe in 2020, you had best report it to the IRS.

---

..... bribes are illegal, so be sure and report all illegal activity on your tax filings.... Seriously?

so you're telling us that Evans went to jail for 11 federal counts of tax evasion? Bull*****

If he had only included it in his tax returns then none of this would have happened to OSU? Bull*****/quote]

---

I never said any of that. I used the IRS as an ANALOGY for the NCAA prosecuting the victim, after the actual criminal has already been convicted and sentenced to prison.

• You said my analogy was silly, because taxes are based on revenue, not bribes.
• I said a bribe is revenue to the person who received it.
• You quoted a website stating that bribes aren't deductible (irrelevant to the discussion).
• I quoted the IRS publication that states bribes received must be reported as income.

Clearly you had no answer to my last point, because you responded by making up some statements that I never made and responding to those. Sorry, I won't play that game. You didn't like my analogy, fine; I got it. But it was still an ANALOGY. Don't pretend that I claimed the IRS had any part of the Lamont Evans/OSU investigation.

Edit:
I did say the part about reporting bribes on your tax return. That was meant to be humorous and slightly tongue-in-cheek; but, yes, that's exactly what the IRS says you are supposed to do.

it was a silly analogy - selling trade secrets is not influence peddling. Evans was not selling our play-book and workout regimes. Regardless, the NCCA does not collect taxes, and does not penalize for fraud, and does not enforce or collect on FBI penalties.

And some bribes are legal revenue, and must be reported as income. We're not talking about IRS handling of legal bribes. (or how they handle any bribe... the IRS has nothing to do with this, nor does the FBI)

back to the topic..... what would you have the NCAA do to ensure that they can get the cooperation that is required as part of their employment?