ADVERTISEMENT

Sullivan infractions article:

73Card

1500+
Gold Member
Sep 4, 2006
1,797
1,599
26

If anyone can refute anything that Sully has said here. Please do. Our Director of Basketball Operations was literally shredding documents. Good Lord, if this is true we are ****ed.

" The University of Louisville’s position is that nobody knew.

The school insists the bribery scheme preceding former basketball recruit Brian Bowen’s enrollment was all Adidas’ doing and should not be held against the school that stood to benefit from his five-star talents.

But depositions and documents filed in Bowen’s lawsuit against the shoe company could undermine that argument in U of L’s infractions case with the NCAA’s Independent Accountability Resolution Process.

At best, it now seems naïve.

If you don't remember, Bowen II, the McDonald’s All-American who was the highest-profile prospect in Rick Pitino’s final recruiting class at Louisville, was prevented from playing college basketball amid allegations arising from an FBI probe that his signing was induced by a promise of $100,000, in violation of NCAA rules.

Bowen's father, Brian Bowen Sr., admitted to taking bribes but maintained his son did not know about the scheme.

In November 2018, Bowen II sued Adidas and six associates: Adidas employees James Gatto and Chris Rivers, consultants T.J. Gassnolla and Merl Code, aspiring agent Christian Dawkins and financial adviser Munish Sood.

Adidas responded in a motion filed on Feb. 6, 2019, in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina, arguing the company was not responsible for the actions of the other defendants and writing, "His father’s conduct while acting on his behalf puts Bowen at equal fault with the defendants."

Aspiring agent Christian Dawkins and U of L assistant coach Kenny Johnson exchanged 23 text messages on May 30, 2017, regarding Bowen’s recruitment, and both men felt the need to contact Adidas that same day on that same subject.

In one three-minute span, Dawkins told Johnson he needed to talk to Adidas when he was away from the Bowen family “and we should be good,” and Johnson then texted Adidas’ Chris Rivers with an update on Bowen’s recruiting trip.

More: Louisville basketball's fate rests with independent panel after NCAA bows out

“We had a great visit with Brian Bowen,” Johnson said. “Couldn’t have went better. Hope to get it done asap.”

Bowen’s signing was announced three days later.

Viewed in a vacuum, the text messages prove only that Adidas’ director of youth basketball was in the loop in the last days before Bowen made his college choice. There was, to be sure, no mention of money.

Yet given Adidas’ free-spending pursuit of U.S. market share, its strategic emphasis on young basketball talent and its ambivalence about auditing expenses, the corporate coffers had become an invaluable recruiting resource for affiliated schools.

Though initial reports about the Bowen court filings focused on the continuing dispute over his father’s claim that Johnson had given him an improper payment of $1,300, the crux of U of L’s case involves whether it should be held responsible for infractions Adidas’ employees caused as “representatives of the university’s athletic interests.”

While Johnson has “emphatically” denied making any payments to Brian Bowen Sr., he was evasive during his April 14 deposition in Bowen II’s case against Adidas.

For subscribers
: Ex-Louisville coaches Kenny Johnson, Jordan Fair detail their stance in response to NCAA

Johnson invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 47 times while being questioned by Bowen’s attorney, Mullins McLeod, often in response to seemingly innocuous questions.

For instance:

Question: “Did Bowen Sr. refer to you sometimes in text messages as Ken?”

Answer: “Upon advice of counsel, I’m exercising my Fifth Amendment privilege.”

Since only part of Johnson’s deposition is included in the court filings, and at least 122 pages of the transcript were excluded, the total number of times he pled the Fifth is unclear. So, too, are the reasons behind his reticence.

Still, while U of L’s lawyers have asserted no one at the university had knowledge of the promised $100,000 payoff for Bowen’s commitment, they have conceded former assistant coach Jordan Fair was in the Las Vegas hotel room when Dawkins and Brad
Augustine discussed the scheme in front of an undercover agent using the name Jeff DeAngelo and cooperating witness Martin Blazer.

And Johnson’s cellphone records show a May 27, 2017, text to Mike Bowden, U of L’s director of basketball operations, that is most easily read as recognition something sketchy was taking place in Bowen’s recruitment.
“Remove Christian Dawkins from all records on this visit,” Johnson told Bowden. “No paperwork.”
“OK,” Bowden replied. “Never heard the name before.”


Absent clarifying context, that exchange raises more questions than it answers. Worth remembering, though, is the NCAA is not bound by the same standards of evidence as a court of law.

According to NCAA bylaw 19.9.8.3, “The hearing panel shall base its decision on information presented to it that it determines to be credible, persuasive and of a kind on which reasonably prudent persons rely in the conduct of serious affairs.”
Guilt, then, need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The smell test can suffice. And something surely stinks here.


More: Justice delayed is justice NCAA-style: Wheels turning slowly in solving DI infractions

“The goal is to have (Bowen) back by Thursday,” Dawkins texted Johnson on May 30, 2017. “But going to let him take the night so he thinks he came to this decision by himself.”

An Adidas email message string started by Rivers shows the shoe company had targeted Bowen as early as 2015 as one of a handful of players “we should make a hard push to get (assuming it will take some creative persuasion to get it done).”

That message was shared with a group of Adidas sports marketing staff informally known as “Black Ops.”
“A black operation is an operation that’s dark, underground and you don’t want anybody to know about it,” former Adidas consultant T.J. Gassnola testified during his 2018 trial.

U of L’s position is that nobody knew. We'll see how far that gets them.
Tim Sullivan: 502-582-4650, tsullivan@courier-journal.com; Twitter: @TimSullivan714


https://sajgtracker.com/ba8698c4-aa...dG_agrQ50Jyigi33sXqR4Z7J-PiCBxksoiNCJ7byIj5wL


















https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...m_content=RightRailArticleThumbnails-Redesign
 
A few things - Sully can read into whatever he wants but invoking the 5th Amendment does not make something crossover the threshold of the preponderance of evidence. By him doing that, the NCAA cannot infer anything.
The fact that Bowen Sr twice told the FBI that Kenny Johnson did not give him money (and the tangential evidence doesn’t show any proof of money being exchanged) should disqualify Bowen’s subsequent statement that KJ did give him money. He contradicted himself multiple times.
Dawkins being on the recruiting visit and then documents being shredded regarding that visit are a problem I believe. I think the NCAA considered Dawkins an agent so he should not have been on campus. That’s certainly a problem. Not sure how big of a problem.
I think the biggest question mark is how the NCAA views the Jordan Fair recording from Las Vegas. It doesn’t sound good and certainly seems shady. However is there proof anything happened?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gocds
Any violation is a problem. Agent on campus might not be a big thing under circumstances not so much with Louisville. Here the thing Johnson was fired which is exactly what should of happened.

Fair he failed to report which is a minor violation. That is it. No money changed hands, player never came to Louisville, and the player played at FSU. Fair was fired.

This boils down to is Adidas a booster?That is it. We will know that answer once the cases start getting resolved. What Johnson and Fair did are minor and they were fired plus Rick and Jurich. If Adidas isn’t deemed a booster then Louisville fired everyone for minor offenses. I think that matters. If Adidas is a booster Louisville is screwed and it doesn’t matter who they fired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smithereen
Any violation is a problem. Agent on campus might not be a big thing under circumstances not so much with Louisville. Here the thing Johnson was fired which is exactly what should of happened.

Fair he failed to report which is a minor violation. That is it. No money changed hands, player never came to Louisville, and the player played at FSU. Fair was fired.

This boils down to is Adidas a booster?That is it. We will know that answer once the cases start getting resolved. What Johnson and Fair did are minor and they were fired plus Rick and Jurich. If Adidas isn’t deemed a booster then Louisville fired everyone for minor offenses. I think that matters. If Adidas is a booster Louisville is screwed and it doesn’t matter who they fired.
IMO Cycle you have nailed it. It's my understanding other schools have taken the same stance, as we have regards Adidas, as not being a booster. We should how that stance plays out before our decision comes down, as the cases of NCST, and Kansas are ahead of us in the IRP line for cases heard.
 
I think the NCAA is a slippery slope on claiming Adidas or any big time sponsor is a booster. Especially that same group sponsors any NCAA sanctioned events. It will make their job 10 times harder. Theses sponsors have millions of people working for them. How do you even begin to monitor or enforced that?

The new NIL rules will basically make what happened legal in a sense. Those rules will be in place before some of these cases are even heard. Let’s hammer someone for something that is now legal. I just don’t see it happening. I think coaches that clearly knew they players were getting paid need to be hammered. That is how you stop this. Ban them from coaching in amateur sports.
 
Adidas is not a sponsor. Neither is Nike or UnderArmor. The relationships between these entities and the various Universities and colleges is based in business. They are contracted to pay money based on a contract they have with a particular school. And every college in the USA is under contract with some apparel company. There is no violation there. In fact I would believe that the NCAA has a contract with someone. The potential issues arise when a particular college employee takes a direct payment to influence their employer (college) to sign up with a particular clothing company.

GO CARDS!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smithereen
73Card ...... always appreciate a lengthy and comprehensive post like yours to read. I will not try to match your details, but I do take complete exception to Sullivan and his interpretation of these events.

There are civil and criminal trials taking place that have already produced some contradictory testimony that may or may not influence the NCAA in their final determination as to how UL will be treated. Sullivan appears to have selected the testimony that fits his agenda, and dismisses that which does not.

What I cannot figure out, is why the NCAA did not charge UL with LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL, as that would have covered the negligence that led to the firing of both Pitino and Jurich, something that Pitino has already conceded when he acknowledged "that he should have known what was going on". Instead, the NCAA has charged UL with making inadmissible payments to Bowen Jr family. There is nothing Sullivan wrote in his article that shows evidence that any UL representative paid the Bowen family anything. The shredding of documents will require some plausible explanation from UL, but Sullivan will be the last person in the world to figure that one out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smithereen
Hmmmmmmmmm, if anything was said that would shine a positive light on UofL would Sullivan even mention that much less write an entire column about it? We all know the answer to that potential situation. CJ versus UofL??? So my question is why read Sullivan’s/CJ drivel? Logic says there is BS and then there is accurate truthfulness.

GO CARDS!!!
 
Hmmmmmmmmm, if anything was said that would shine a positive light on UofL would Sullivan even mention that much less write an entire column about it? We all know the answer to that potential situation. CJ versus UofL??? So my question is why read Sullivan’s/CJ drivel? Logic says there is BS and then there is accurate truthfulness.

GO CARDS!!!
Specifically, what statements do you believe were not truthful or factual ? Not trying to be a smart azz but that was the basic question I had after reading his article.
 
Specifically, what statements do you believe were not truthful or factual ? Not trying to be a smart azz but that was the basic question I had after reading his article.
My point is that he used this opportunity to continue the negative crap against UofL and that if the opportunity to be positive arose that he wouldn’t report that aspect of any situation about UofL. That has been the position of the curious urinal for many years.

GO CARDS!!!
 
73 Card: it is not about what was accurate vs inaccurate; it’s about how Sullivan is taking contradictory testimony and selecting whatever points negatively towards UL. In truth, no one knows with any certainty what actually took place, or why individuals did what they have been accused of doing.

One most fundamental question is whether the Bowen family received any money from a UL representative? Despite all of the depositions, testimony and insinuations ....... there is still no evidence to support that conclusion; yet Sully uses the opportunity to write an article assigning guilt on UL.

Sullivan and I are actually alike in one respect; neither one of us know what took place in this sorted matter. If Sullivan knew anything related to this case he would have been identified as a witness and deposed.
 
73 Card: it is not about what was accurate vs inaccurate; it’s about how Sullivan is taking contradictory testimony and selecting whatever points negatively towards UL. In truth, no one knows with any certainty what actually took place, or why individuals did what they have been accused of doing.

One most fundamental question is whether the Bowen family received any money from a UL representative? Despite all of the depositions, testimony and insinuations ....... there is still no evidence to support that conclusion; yet Sully uses the opportunity to write an article assigning guilt on UL.

Sullivan and I are actually alike in one respect; neither one of us know what took place in this sorted matter. If Sullivan knew anything related to this case he would have been identified as a witness and deposed.
233 excellent post and you said it much better than I would have. Thanks.

GO CARDS!!!
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT