ADVERTISEMENT

UNC attorney playing bias against Sankey and investigation

Also comparing UNCheat scandal to Auburn '05 case which allowed kids to skip through with little school work.

https://apnews.com/21088deee1a74d4f...lFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Sports

More deflection, denial and no way Crowder can remember what happened decades ago.

They're going all in to clear their cheating name.

These UNC lawyers are attacking this case like they are involved in a murder case and someone's life is at stake. This is beyond ridiculous.
 
These UNC lawyers are attacking this case like they are involved in a murder case and someone's life is at stake. This is beyond ridiculous.

This is about laying the groundwork for a lawsuit either because that's truly their intent or because they want to at least make the NCAA / COI take the threat seriously.

The flip side of that is this: UNC has been signaling for the past couple of months now that they are legimately worried that they are about to get hammered. It's very foolish to attack a judge unless you are convinced you are left with no other choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMKAT and TM2013
Another attempt to cloud the issue, deflect and DELAY!!!

Love how UNCheats is spending the Carolina taxpayers money.
 
This is about laying the groundwork for a lawsuit either because that's truly their intent or because they want to at least make the NCAA / COI take the threat seriously.

The flip side of that is this: UNC has been signaling for the past couple of months now that they are legimately worried that they are about to get hammered. It's very foolish to attack a judge unless you are convinced you are left with no other choice.

My hope is that it backfires against them. That would be awesome. Playing hardball is sometimes the worse way to go.
 
If the NCAA doesn't blow them away big time they should just forget worrying about cheating for everyone. Why should they get away with academic fraud for a lot of years yet nobody else had those advantages? They should have TWO Titles taken away.
 
That hammer is most likely not coming. I bet you that Sankey leaves and magically they get a fourth NOA, which is eerily similar to the second NOA. Now, will UNC decide to pick that one...we'll have to wait and see.
I would take that bet. The NCAA has entered survival mode. Kill or be killed. They're already on the verge of losing the battle of amateurism. They fail to punish UNC and they'll lose it for sure. Can no longer claim to pay students in the form of a scholarship for an education after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lumpy 2
I would take that bet. The NCAA has entered survival mode. Kill or be killed. They're already on the verge of losing the battle of amateurism. They fail to punish UNC and they'll lose it for sure. Can no longer claim to pay students in the form of a scholarship for an education after that.

I don't think not punishing UNC will make or break the NCAA...they're considered worthless by 99% of the population (pretty much anyone who isn't getting a piece of the pie). Not to mention, no one is going to be satisfied until they start paying athletes. The "free education" bit won't fly for much longer. Also, even if they end up giving away 1/2 of what they bring in, there's still more than enough to go around with the powers that be. Finally, if they do break up, don't you think those who carry any weight will find themselves as members of the new ruling body? I do.

If the NCAA was really worried about their image, then they would have never come out with the second NOA. They were being crucified in the court of public opinion already.
 
These UNC lawyers are attacking this case like they are involved in a murder case and someone's life is at stake. This is beyond ridiculous.
Yes they are,the problem is this is not a criminal case and never will be from the perspective of NCAA violations. There may well have been criminal activity associated with the cheating(misuse of grant money, etc)The standard of proof in a civil matter(if this got into court as a lawsuit) is different than a criminal proceeding.

The NCAA may choose to do nothing,or impose a sanction that UNC can live with but I think UNC lawyers are going down the wrong road if they intend to file suit at a later date.
 
That hammer is most likely not coming. I bet you that Sankey leaves and magically they get a fourth NOA, which is eerily similar to the second NOA. Now, will UNC decide to pick that one...we'll have to wait and see.

UNC's response to the second NOA was that the NCAA had no jurisdiction on the issue and was not in a position to issue the NOA in the first place. Absent new exculpatory information, UNC has removed a watering down of the NOA as an option by turning this into an all or nothing proposition.

As to whether they will get hammered, UNC disagrees with your assessment. Hence the textbook litigation communications strategy they've started running. An attorney who is confident in the strength of their position in this case does not leak two letters drafted on behalf of their client to a North Carolina based member of the press. You seem to be missing what's playing out here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jarms24
Isn't UNC also being sued by several former athletes for being told what they had to major in?
 
Also comparing UNCheat scandal to Auburn '05 case which allowed kids to skip through with little school work.

https://apnews.com/21088deee1a74d4f...lFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Sports

More deflection, denial and no way Crowder can remember what happened decades ago.

They're going all in to clear their cheating name.

Back to the main point of this thread, there were two interesting pieces of information in that article.
  1. We now know that the COI essentially gave Crowder one month to participate in an interview. Her attorney's second letter was complaining about this Friday's "arbitrary" deadline. That certainly seems like a more than reasonable extension on the part of the COI. It'll be interesting to see if UNC has anything to say about the timeline this Friday or on Monday.
  2. Her attorney complained about the deadline not giving Crowder sufficient time to prepare for an interview that will cover documents from up to "four decades ago." The earliest alleged violations were from fall 2002, which is not quite 15 years ago. There should be no reason to discuss documents from 1977. This seems to be quite the exagggeration on the part of her attorney, which usually indicates an attorney trying to shape perception and not argue based on the facts.
 
UNC's response to the second NOA was that the NCAA had no jurisdiction on the issue and was not in a position to issue the NOA in the first place. Absent new exculpatory information, UNC has removed a watering down of the NOA as an option by turning this into an all or nothing proposition.

As to whether they will get hammered, UNC disagrees with your assessment. Hence the textbook litigation communications strategy they've started running. An attorney who is confident in the strength of their position in this case does not leak two letters drafted on behalf of their client to a North Carolina based member of the press. You seem to be missing what's playing out here.

You might be right, but you and others were saying the same things (that UNC was going to get hit hard) around the same time right before the second NOA came out. So, I won't be shocked if (and when) this goes back in their favor.

By the way, do you think there is any chance Sankey is recused/recuses himself? Would you consider it a blow to the chance that UNC gets punished if it does happen?
 
You might be right, but you and others were saying the same things (that UNC was going to get hit hard) around the same time right before the second NOA came out. So, I won't be shocked if (and when) this goes back in their favor.

By the way, do you think there is any chance Sankey is recused/recuses himself? Would you consider it a blow to the chance that UNC gets punished if it does happen?
Why would he recuse himself? What has he done that would require him to do that? You have a very interesting point of view.
 
You might be right, but you and others were saying the same things (that UNC was going to get hit hard) around the same time right before the second NOA came out. So, I won't be shocked if (and when) this goes back in their favor.

By the way, do you think there is any chance Sankey is recused/recuses himself? Would you consider it a blow to the chance that UNC gets punished if it does happen?

The likelihood he would recuse himself is very small. All of his actions to this point have been well within the scope of authority granted to him by the by-laws. Further, the idea of a conflict of interest here, or that somehow the SEC commissioner is out to get a school from another conference is absurd. It's a conspiracy theory that shouldn't be taken seriously. The fact that you would even ask this question is revealing.

And in the very unlikely event that he did recuse himself, it does not change the likelihood of UNC getting severe penalties. That was always going to be the result of a decision by the full committee. That's not something that a chair can simply drive through on their own.

If Sankey did recuse himself, the most likely reason that would occur is because by doing so, it would damage UNC's ability to get this into court. UNC can't sue on the grounds that they were punished by a biased COI chair if that biased COI chair recused himself. So him recusing himself is potentially bad news for UNC anyway.
 
Her attorney complained about the deadline not giving Crowder sufficient time to prepare for an interview that will cover documents from up to "four decades ago." The earliest alleged violations were from fall 2002, which is not quite 15 years ago. There should be no reason to discuss documents from 1977. This seems to be quite the exaggeration on the part of her attorney, which usually indicates an attorney trying to shape perception and not argue based on the facts.
The lady has had YEARS to think this one over. I remember you and I having this discussion just after her affidavit was filed. Glad to see they only gave her a month, which is what I originally suggested. If they gave 90 days, it would have made them look complicit, imo.

You might be right, but you and others were saying the same things (that UNC was going to get hit hard) around the same time right before the second NOA came out. So, I won't be shocked if (and when) this goes back in their favor.

By the way, do you think there is any chance Sankey is recused/recuses himself? Would you consider it a blow to the chance that UNC gets punished if it does happen?
@uncfaninky, is that you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: preacherfan
You might be right, but you and others were saying the same things (that UNC was going to get hit hard) around the same time right before the second NOA came out. So, I won't be shocked if (and when) this goes back in their favor.

By the way, do you think there is any chance Sankey is recused/recuses himself? Would you consider it a blow to the chance that UNC gets punished if it does happen?

I'd also add, in regards to the bolded portion of your post, that I never discussed this case with you before before the second NOA was released. That happened around April / May of last year. You didn't create your account until this past November.

Generally, the only time I'd discuss the case back then was when someone needed to smack down the nonsense the Jiggletooth/Bobbygtickleswerv was spouting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jarms24
Surely the ncaa would look at unc' latest attempts to get crowder back on board----after originally convincing her not to cooperate----with a spurious eye. I can not imagine---given the totality of the circumstances at this point----crowder could say anything that would persuade the coi on any significant issue. In fact, I would think such measures would almost be offensive to the coi at this point. If crowder was important or had anything material to provide---that was true or legitimate to unc cause---it could have come about 6 years ago---when this started and she was told to keep quiet. Is this effort by unc not a tacit admission that they have been wasting the ncaa and coi time for 6 years?
 
I'd also add, in regards to the bolded portion of your post, that I never discussed this case with you before before the second NOA was released. That happened around April / May of last year. You didn't create your account until this past November.

Generally, the only time I'd discuss the case back then was when someone needed to smack down the nonsense the Jiggletooth/Bobbygtickleswerv was spouting.
That's because, as I pointed out above, he is @uncfaninky
 
Can Carolina get any lower? What a POS university.

Here we have the most self-righteous sports program in the country- AD, Dean Smith, Roy on down to their fans- doing everything in its power from stall ball to misdirection to trying to play technicalities- to wiggle its way out of blatant cheating.

What happened to the Carolina Way? Where are all those smug pricks now?
 
Also comparing UNCheat scandal to Auburn '05 case which allowed kids to skip through with little school work.

https://apnews.com/21088deee1a74d4f...lFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Sports

More deflection, denial and no way Crowder can remember what happened decades ago.

They're going all in to clear their cheating name.

Wait so is this guy Crowder's attorney or UNC's? It claims he's Crowder's but he seems to be overly concerned with the NCAA-UNC case.

This illustrates a point I made when Crowder first came "forward" at the 11th hour. Seems it's driven more to benefit UNC's case by giving them yet another delay in the case, versus anything to benefit Crowder.

This is purely a delay tactic by UNC. Hopefully the NCAA understands this and the next time they try to pull this stunt they're slapped with being uncooperative on top of everything else.
 
That's because, as I pointed out above, he is @uncfaninky

uncfaninky has posted under other aliases before. During a discussion with a poster on this board whom many thought was uncfan, someone made a claim about uncfan that he refuted less than 2 minutes later on the THR because he didn't want the other UNC fans to think that he had said it. It was hysterical! But, then he just lied and lied and lied. He apparently fits the culture of Roy and Dean.
 
uncfaninky has posted under other aliases before. During a discussion with a poster on this board whom many thought was uncfan, someone made a claim about uncfan that he refuted less than 2 minutes later on the THR because he didn't want the other UNC fans to think that he had said it. It was hysterical! But, then he just lied and lied and lied. He apparently fits the culture of Roy and Dean.
He's a sociopath
 
  • Like
Reactions: railroadkat_1
He's a sociopath

Years ago there was someone with that handle at Inside Carolina. Acted just like a butt hurt Louisville fan when it came to talking about UK

also back to the OP

While its natural for a lawyer to cite precedent, I think its risky to lock into one specific punishment (or lack thereof) when there are so many others to compare to that had moderate to severe punishments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMKAT and jarms24
I'd also add, in regards to the bolded portion of your post, that I never discussed this case with you before before the second NOA was released. That happened around April / May of last year. You didn't create your account until this past November.

Generally, the only time I'd discuss the case back then was when someone needed to smack down the nonsense the Jiggletooth/Bobbygtickleswerv was spouting.

That's because, as I pointed out above, he is @uncfaninky

You two do understand that you can read the boards without having to create an account, right?
 
The likelihood he would recuse himself is very small. All of his actions to this point have been well within the scope of authority granted to him by the by-laws. Further, the idea of a conflict of interest here, or that somehow the SEC commissioner is out to get a school from another conference is absurd. It's a conspiracy theory that shouldn't be taken seriously. The fact that you would even ask this question is revealing.

And in the very unlikely event that he did recuse himself, it does not change the likelihood of UNC getting severe penalties. That was always going to be the result of a decision by the full committee. That's not something that a chair can simply drive through on their own.

If Sankey did recuse himself, the most likely reason that would occur is because by doing so, it would damage UNC's ability to get this into court. UNC can't sue on the grounds that they were punished by a biased COI chair if that biased COI chair recused himself. So him recusing himself is potentially bad news for UNC anyway.

So, by stepping aside he would help the COI's case stick, yet you don't think he'll do that. It sounds like you think that the NCAA/COI doesn't want to tie up all their loose ends.

I personally think the odds of him stepping aside are much higher than "small", considering his position at the time of the Auburn case. But, I'm not one of the seemingly infinite number of brain surgeons and lawyers we have on the internet these days. So I'll just have to wait and see.
 
So, by stepping aside he would help the COI's case stick, yet you don't think he'll do that. It sounds like you think that the NCAA/COI doesn't want to tie up all their loose ends.

The issue is this is just another delaying tactic, to kick the can on down the road. UNCheats has been playing this game for over four years. Tie up this loose end, and they will come up with another, real or imagined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wildcatwelder
So, by stepping aside he would help the COI's case stick, yet you don't think he'll do that. It sounds like you think that the NCAA/COI doesn't want to tie up all their loose ends.

I personally think the odds of him stepping aside are much higher than "small", considering his position at the time of the Auburn case. But, I'm not one of the seemingly infinite number of brain surgeons and lawyers we have on the internet these days. So I'll just have to wait and see.

Regarding your first paragraph, your synthesis of my post is not accurate.

As to Auburn, that case is irrelevant to UNC's. There are several key differences between the two that explain the NCAA's actions. They are only comparable if you take a very superficial view of things. This is nothing more than grasping at straws to shape the perception of those who don't take the time to think.
 
So, by stepping aside he would help the COI's case stick, yet you don't think he'll do that. It sounds like you think that the NCAA/COI doesn't want to tie up all their loose ends.

I personally think the odds of him stepping aside are much higher than "small", considering his position at the time of the Auburn case. But, I'm not one of the seemingly infinite number of brain surgeons and lawyers we have on the internet these days. So I'll just have to wait and see.

That post just reeks of derogatory sarcasm. I think you continue to show your true colors. So, my question is: Why not just tell us which UNC poster you are and then maybe we can have an honest discussion instead of the farce you are trying to cover up? BTW, I am simply being serious. It doesn't bother me to have an honest discussion but when the other person has a clear agenda they are hiding, it is bothersome to me.
 
So, I ask a few questions and I must be a UNC supporter. Great logic here fellows. I'll leave this topic to you internet lawyers. I sure hope you are as good at being an internet as you imply. Otherwise people might start questioning whether or not you actually know what you are talking about.

I'll keep checking back in from time to time to see how things are going. For me, I am more interested in UK basketball and not UNC basketball...unlike a few around here. But, I guess you can always go back to the dook forums once UNC's day of judgment is over. Carry on. [roll]
 
That hammer is most likely not coming. I bet you that Sankey leaves and magically they get a fourth NOA, which is eerily similar to the second NOA. Now, will UNC decide to pick that one...we'll have to wait and see.

This is the worse thing that will happen, because UNC has no power to remove Sankey. Their bullying will turn this one way or the other.

Time for Boeheim to make a comment on this, because he took a major career hit, and they agreed to work with the NCAA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jarms24
Regarding your first paragraph, your synthesis of my post is not accurate.

As to Auburn, that case is irrelevant to UNC's. There are several key differences between the two that explain the NCAA's actions. They are only comparable if you take a very superficial view of things. This is nothing more than grasping at straws to shape the perception of those who don't take the time to think.

Sorry, in my haste I forgot to ask what are the key differences in the two cases. If you have time and are willing, coul you please explain to us why UNC would keep bringing this case up and why there are several key differences in the two? That is, what are the similarities and differences between the two cases?
 
Sorry, in my haste I forgot to ask what are the key differences in the two cases. If you have time and are willing, coul you please explain to us why UNC would keep bringing this case up and why there are several key differences in the two? That is, what are the similarities and differences between the two cases?

If I'm an internet lawyer, why do you care about my opinion?
 
If I'm an internet lawyer, why do you care about my opinion?

Curious, I guess. Also, it doesn't take a lawyer to find key differences and similarities in two things...but it does take someone with some smarts and familiarity with the situations, both of which you seem to have and two things that I clearly don't posses.

It would be nice to have a small glimpse into why UNC keeps bringing this up and why it's a different case (and also if there are any similarities between the two).
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT