« on: October 13, 2009, 04:00:19 PM »
Yeah, that's why the number is so high
More on UA's textbook appeal: NCAA Committee on Infractions tagged UA as a 'serial repeat violator' with an 'abysmal' record
By Gentry Estes, Mobile Press-Register
October 13, 2009, 11:01AM
The NCAA Committee on Infractions called the University of Alabama a "serial repeat violator" with an "abysmal infractions track record" and an "extensive recent history of infractions cases unmatched by any other member institution in the NCAA," in responding to the school's textbook appeal, according to documents released today.
(View the full rebuttal from UA and other links in our earlier post).
UA released its 14-page rebuttal to the COI's response today. Dated Sept. 17, UA's rebuttal is the final brief to be filed before the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee -- a separate entity from the COI -- considers both sides of the argument and issues a decision on the appeal. The COI's response has not been released to the public, but was quoted in UA's rebuttal.
The school is appealing the portion of the NCAA's sanctions that required the forced vacating of records in football, men's tennis and track, which included 21 football victories from 2005-07. The appeal is built on the argument that the COI deviated from past precedent in textbook cases by forcing records to be vacated.
The COI countered by pointing to UA's status as a repeat violator in the eyes of the NCAA.
UA responded to those statements by saying, "At least 27 institutions have experienced the same number of more major infractions cases than the University. Characterizing the University as 'abysmal' therefore maligns almost a quarter of the schools in the FBS, including half of the Pac-10, half of the Big 12, three schools in the ACC and four members of the Big 10."
The COI also argued that UA could have received even harsher penalties.
"If the COI had vacated all contests for all student-athletes who received impermissible benefits," UA's rebuttal said, "it would have found itself vacating contests based on benefits as small as 35 cents."
UA's rebuttal also states that "the COI has failed not only to explain its departure from textbook case precedent in the Public Infractions Report, the COI has compounded that error by failing even to acknowledge the existence of those prior textbook cases in its brief."
« Last Edit: October 13, 2009, 04:03:52 PM by Saniflush »
Logged
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"Hey my friends are the ones that wanted to eat at that shitty hole in the wall that only served bread and wine. What kind of brick and mud business model is that. Stick to the cart if that's all you're going to serve. Then that dude came in with like 12 other people, and some of them weren't even wearing shoes, and the restaurant sat them right across from us. It was gross, and they were all stinky and dirty. Then dude starts talking about eating his body and drinking his blood...I almost lost it. That's the last supper I'll ever have there, and I hope he dies a horrible death."
3 Replies
998 Views