In the case of UNC, the Weinstein report was not evidence per se, outside of some of the attachments. Rather, the Weinstein Report consisted of findings based on Weinstein’s review of the evidence. It didn’t fully present the evidence itself (e.g., interview transcripts, full text of ALL emails reviewed).
I realize it sounds like I’m arguing semantics here, but it’s actually an important distinction. And that created challenges under the NCAA enforcement process in place at the time.
As an aside, UNC’s strategy all along was to conduct a “robust” investigation in a fashion that allowed them to tout the fact they got to the bottom of this while at the same time preventing the NCAA from using it. Rick Evrard, the attorney advising UNC on NCAA matters, was the one who drafted the scope of Weinstein and stipulated things like how interviews would be conducted. The investigation process was designed in a way to undermine the NCAA’s ability to rely on its findings.
That said, I personally believe the report was robust enough to warrant its use in place of the direct evidence. And the fact that UNC fired several people and instituted numerous “reforms” on the basis of the report’s findings, indicates that UNC also implicitly believed the report was robust (UNC’s disavowal of the report during the Committee hearing was laughably disingenuous).
Point being, I think the COI dropped the ball on UNC. But the decision of whether or not to rely on Weinstein during the hearing was not as clear cut as most people believe. Had the NCAA moved forward with Weinstein, it increased the likelihood that UNC could defeat a motion to dismiss. And while the NCAA most likely prevails in any lawsuit, they simply didn’t have the stomach for a protracted legal battle. I strongly disagree with their decision, but also understand the factors they were weighing.