O
OO44
Guest
I receved the following email this morning from a prominent attorney in Los Angeles:
Many months too late, Nike mogul Phil Knight has now changed his position 180 degrees about Coach Joe Paterno. Please see attached news item. Now Mr. Knight is very critical of the Freeh Report. What took him so long?
When the Freeh Report was released in 2012, I immediately printed it and read all 267 pages. I was terribly dismayed. I was very critical of the Freeh Report right from the beginning. In making that criticism, I was one of a VERY SMALL MINORITY who had the advantage of knowing what I was talking about.
But the NCAA, in its haste to grab onto the public condemnation of Penn State, completely accepted every word of the Freeh Report as if it was gospel truth. The NCAA couldn't act fast enough in imposing heinous penalties against Penn State, including a $60 million fine, and vacating all of Penn State's football victories for about ten years. Think of that -- a $60 million fine. Could the NCAA impose a $60 million fine against Drake University or Sul Ross State? Penn State was hit with such an onerous fine only because it has the money to pay it.
Any law professor, judge, or appellate lawyer would give that grandiose Freeh Report a C minus for its draftsmanship and content. Why do I say "grandiose"? Some of the most important allegations were repeated four or five times in various sections of the report. If one took out all the repetitions, the report would probably be down to about 100 pages. The draftsmanship was awful.
The Freeh Report has many, many pages of ALLEGATIONS. Two dictionary definitions of "allegation" are:
"An assertion made with little or no proof. " "An assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding which the party then undertakes to prove."
The NCAA grabbed onto to every "allegation" but did not bother going to the next step of proving those allegations. The State of Pennsylvania now has a lawsuit filed in Federal court. Depositions will eventually be taken (but only after the NCAA puts up every legal obstruction to PREVENT such depositions). The NCAA does not want any of its investigative personnel to bear the handicap of testifying under oath in any proceeding, not anywhere.
The Watergate hearings in 1973 and 1974 taught us that the greatest fact-finding vehicle ever invented comes from vigorous cross-examination of persons who are testifying UNDER OATH.
Eventually the NCAA will be put into that position in the Penn State case. All aspects of that case will take on a far different look when that happens.
Many months too late, Nike mogul Phil Knight has now changed his position 180 degrees about Coach Joe Paterno. Please see attached news item. Now Mr. Knight is very critical of the Freeh Report. What took him so long?
When the Freeh Report was released in 2012, I immediately printed it and read all 267 pages. I was terribly dismayed. I was very critical of the Freeh Report right from the beginning. In making that criticism, I was one of a VERY SMALL MINORITY who had the advantage of knowing what I was talking about.
But the NCAA, in its haste to grab onto the public condemnation of Penn State, completely accepted every word of the Freeh Report as if it was gospel truth. The NCAA couldn't act fast enough in imposing heinous penalties against Penn State, including a $60 million fine, and vacating all of Penn State's football victories for about ten years. Think of that -- a $60 million fine. Could the NCAA impose a $60 million fine against Drake University or Sul Ross State? Penn State was hit with such an onerous fine only because it has the money to pay it.
Any law professor, judge, or appellate lawyer would give that grandiose Freeh Report a C minus for its draftsmanship and content. Why do I say "grandiose"? Some of the most important allegations were repeated four or five times in various sections of the report. If one took out all the repetitions, the report would probably be down to about 100 pages. The draftsmanship was awful.
The Freeh Report has many, many pages of ALLEGATIONS. Two dictionary definitions of "allegation" are:
"An assertion made with little or no proof. " "An assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding which the party then undertakes to prove."
The NCAA grabbed onto to every "allegation" but did not bother going to the next step of proving those allegations. The State of Pennsylvania now has a lawsuit filed in Federal court. Depositions will eventually be taken (but only after the NCAA puts up every legal obstruction to PREVENT such depositions). The NCAA does not want any of its investigative personnel to bear the handicap of testifying under oath in any proceeding, not anywhere.
The Watergate hearings in 1973 and 1974 taught us that the greatest fact-finding vehicle ever invented comes from vigorous cross-examination of persons who are testifying UNDER OATH.
Eventually the NCAA will be put into that position in the Penn State case. All aspects of that case will take on a far different look when that happens.
