ADVERTISEMENT

College FBI trial first Gatto name droppings

Yeah, interesting the Feds would ask the compliance director if he knew, not sure what their angle is with that bit of news.
If the schools are legitimately "victims", they better not know. What I'll agree is it's interesting that the prosecution asked the question and not the defendants...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kl40504
If the schools are legitimately "victims", they better not know. What I'll agree is it's interesting that the prosecution asked the question and not the defendants...
I agree that the Universities and their fans in this situation are the victim, but I don't believe for 1 second the coaches are the victims. These coaches know the system, if they were directly or indirectly involved they should be held accountable for their actions...i.e. finished coaching at the college level.
 
The crux of Pitino's lawsuit is he didn't do anything illegal or in violation of his contract. There was no evidence presented today that undermined that position...

Part of his contract was to adequately monitor his assistants. The revelations today would call that into serious question. I feel pretty confident about OUR position when this thing starts in mediation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: REDFISTFURY3
Little strange the Bowen apparently said he had no conversations with Louisville coaches about cash, but the prosecution asked the compliance guy if he knew about Johnson paying Bowen $1300?
 
Part of his contract was to adequately monitor his assistants. The revelations today would call that into serious question. I feel pretty confident about OUR position when this thing starts in mediation.
The wording in that contract is gonna be debated as far as meaning.

What's clear is that U of L didn't know anything about illicit payments either. The U of L staffer today admitted as much, and that was AFTER they had investigated it. Kinda hard for U of L to make the argument that Pitino should have known what they couldn't find out themselves while knowing what to look for...
 
Little strange the Bowen apparently said he had no conversations with Louisville coaches about cash, but the prosecution asked the compliance guy if he knew about Johnson paying Bowen $1300?

He said Pitino
 
Part of his contract was to adequately monitor his assistants. The revelations today would call that into serious question. I feel pretty confident about OUR position when this thing starts in mediation.
The wording in that contract is gonna be debated as far as meaning.

What's clear is that U of L didn't know anything about illicit payments either. The U of L staffer today admitted as much, and that was AFTER they had investigated it. Kinda hard for U of L to make the argument that Pitino should have known what they couldn't find out themselves while knowing what to look for...

Doesn’t matter he was responsible for his staff per the NCAA. Three coaches paying players that’s not an isolated incident. Who knows if Rick knew he’s not going to tell anyone and until they get one of his coaches in a legal situation where they’ll squeal rather than go to jail we probably won’t know. Which is why the NCAA changed the rule to hold HC responsible. He’s toast unless they can prove the payments by Johnson and Fair didn’t happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kl40504
Doesn’t matter he was responsible for his staff per the NCAA. Three coaches paying players that’s not an isolated incident. Who knows if Rick knew he’s not going to tell anyone and until they get one of his coaches in a legal situation where they’ll squeal rather than go to jail we probably won’t know. Which is why the NCAA changed the rule to hold HC responsible. He’s toast unless they can prove the payments by Johnson and Fair didn’t happen.
What the NCAA prescribes doesn't matter in contract law. "Should have known" is a construct of the NCAA.

U of L needs an interpretation that the conduct of Pitino's assistants is the same as his own conduct and subject to fire-with-cause language. Any wiggle room in there undermines their defense.

Pitino now has the argument that U of L couldn't find documented misconduct by his assistants after doing their own investigation. To then fire with cause, U of L would have to argue that Pitino should be held to HIGHER standard than their own compliance people could perform. Tough sledding IMO...
 
What the NCAA prescribes doesn't matter in contract law. "Should have known" is a construct of the NCAA.

U of L needs an interpretation that the conduct of Pitino's assistants is the same as his own conduct and subject to fire-with-cause language. Any wiggle room in there undermines their defense.

Pitino now has the argument that U of L couldn't find documented misconduct by his assistants after doing their own investigation. To then fire with cause, U of L would have to argue that Pitino should be held to HIGHER standard than their own compliance people could perform. Tough sledding IMO...

LOL!!! Of course what was uncovered by the FBI actually bolsters Pitino’s case now!!! Just when I thought I’d seen everything....
 
LOL!!! Of course what was uncovered by the FBI actually bolsters Pitino’s case now!!! Just when I thought I’d seen everything....
It's not what the FBI found--evidence of which we're still waiting for. It's what U of L compliance people could NOT find AND while they were looking for it.

But Pitino should have known. As we used to say when I was a kid, "maybe the Pope smokes grass!"... :p
 
It's not what the FBI found--evidence of which we're still waiting for. It's what U of L compliance people could NOT find AND while they were looking for it.

But Pitino should have known. As we used to say when I was a kid, "maybe the Pope smokes grass!"... :p

Your conjecture is wrong. I’ll clue you in - whomever uncovered it doesn’t change if it happened or not. Unfortunately the compliance folks can’t go around tapping the phones. The preponderance of evidence will show repeated violations by direct reports. Pretty much a textbook case of failure to adequately monitor and train staff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CardsFirst
Your conjecture is wrong. I’ll clue you in - whomever uncovered it doesn’t change if it happened or not...
You keep repeating the mistake.

The FBI is out of it. The issue is Pitino v. U of L. Who DIDN'T uncover it IS significant. That's U of L.
...Unfortunately the compliance folks can’t go around tapping the phones...
Never said they did or should. But you're speaking in the context of when the violations occurred. That's different from the investigation U of L conducted on Johnson and Fair AFTER THE FACT. Evidently, U of L didn't find anything either. The compliance officer just testified under oath to that fact.
...The preponderance of evidence will show repeated violations by direct reports. Pretty much a textbook case of failure to adequately monitor and train staff.
That just sounds like hope on your part. And if it's not explicitly a violation of his contract, Pitino has a better case today than he had last week...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kl40504
So odd how Bowen Sr.could not recall the dollar amounts from the king of Nike flag school Oregon. However he could remember every little dollar from all the other schools ! If that does not tell you the power of Nike . Why Addias wanted to level the playing field they know .Hell Gatto stated astronomical amount was offered i can only wonder.
 
Why? He's testifying for the government, NOT the defendant. I, and others on twitter, think this isn't a bad thing. The government is using Bowen Sr. to try and prove that Gatto and others defrauding these Universities.

Today will be the interesting day (potentially terrible for UofL). Bowen is under cross-examination. The defense will certainly hit hard at any payments, etc that Bowen got directly from schools.
 
Today will be the interesting day (potentially terrible for UofL). Bowen is under cross-examination. The defense will certainly hit hard at any payments, etc that Bowen got directly from schools.
Yelp except he isnt going to remember any dollar amounts from Big Nike school orgeon
 
If the schools are legitimately "victims", they better not know. What I'll agree is it's interesting that the prosecution asked the question and not the defendants...
They may have information that the school did know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zipp
On wore tap phone call Gassnola said Louisville coach Rick Pitino had no knowledge of payments to Brian Bowen Sr. Did think asst Kenny Johnson did know. Christian Dawkins said Johnson didn't

7:58 AM - 11 Oct 2018

Dan Wetzel‏Verified account@DanWetzel
Also interesting, in a text exhange between Gassnola and Rick Pitino, Pitino used a thumbs up emoji. I didn't take Pitino as an emoji guy.

8:09 AM - 11 Oct 2018
 
Last edited:
Pete Brush‏@PeteBrush
Tapped #HoopsTrial call: On 8/11/17 Merl Code & Jim Gatto, then of Adidas, discuss paying Nassir Little to go to U of Miami. "The problem is Arizona has offered the kid $150k," Code says. "When would you need the money?" Gatto says. "It doesn't have to be in on lump," Code says

7:48 AM - 11 Oct 2018
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT