Here are the facts from the report:
Did the NCAA actually find no evidence of tampering?
"Although a tampering violation occurred regardless of the content of Brosnan’s communications with the two fathers, the timing of the phone calls strongly suggests a recruiting nexus. As it relates to prospect 1’s father specifically, multiple calls occurred in
the hours immediately before prospect 1 entered the transfer portal. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the conversations, at least in part, involved recruiting communication."
Did any of the recruits admit that Brosnan ever told the parents he wanted the recruits to join the team prior to entering the portal (which would be a violation)?
"During prospect 2’s separate interview with the enforcement staff—which occurred over one year prior to her father’s interview— she recounted her understanding of this conversation based on what her father told her at the time. According to prospect 2, Brosnan told her father, “[W]e would love to have her, but I can’t talk to her until she’s in the portal.”
Was UCLA was paying for his cell phone service - meaning it was considered a work phone?
"During his time at UCLA, Brosnan had one cell phone, which he used for business purposes—including recruiting—as well as personal use. He owned the phone, but UCLA paid for his cell service."
Did the Enforcement staff use any information from Brosnan's phone?
"The enforcement staff also stated that it did not rely on any of the records imaged from Brosnan’s phone in bringing or supporting its allegations."
Were there broken rules regarding imaging the phone?
"To be clear, the enforcement staff did not violate any bylaws or internal operating
procedures related to the imaging of Brosnan’s phone. It appears, however, that the enforcement staff departed from its usual practices when it did not give Brosnan the opportunity through the meet-and-confer process to review and withhold personal records before they were shared with the enforcement staff and institution. In other words, it seems to be a matter of order and timing rather than substance. Although this apparent departure from practice does not cure Brosnan’s failure to cooperate, the panel took these circumstances into account in applying and weighing aggravating and mitigating factors and prescribing penalties."
Did Brosnan ever admit to UCLA compliance that he or his wife had recruiting conversations with the recruits parents before they entered the portal?
"According to the associate director of compliance and recruiting (associate compliance director), the issue of preexisting relationships eventually arose in November 2022, when the cross country transfer window opened and Brosnan approached the compliance office with questions about prospects 1 and 2 potentially transferring to UCLA. The associate compliance director stated that Brosnan told the compliance staff that one of the prospects’ fathers reached out to Brosnan’s wife—who coached at Brosnan’s former high school—about transfer opportunities. The associate compliance director discerned that neither prospect was in the transfer portal. She and the compliance director then explained to Brosnan that he could not talk to the two prospects until they were in the portal, and they could not use Brosnan’s wife as a conduit to communicate with the family."
Did Brosnan's lawyer state that Brosnan had a legitimate reason to refuse to cooperate with the investigation for 4 months?
"Brosnan’s refusal to interview was not justified by the enforcement staff’s denial of his request for access to metadata related to his phone imaging. Indeed, Brosnan’s counsel admitted at the infractions hearing that the two issues were unconnected. When the enforcement staff stated at the hearing that Brosnan requested access to the metadata in order to prepare for his interview, his counsel immediately corrected the record and stated that Brosnan wanted to see the metadata “strictly for his own personal reasons” and not to prepare for the interview. In other words, Brosnan was leveraging his cooperation with the infractions process to obtain information for his own personal use. This is antithetical to the duty to cooperate."
Where there any other allegations of violations?
"While the institution and enforcement staff were investigating the tampering violations, the enforcement staff received information suggesting that Brosnan engaged in impermissible in-person contact with a women's cross country and track and field prospective student-athlete (prospect 3). Specifically, on June 18, 2023, at the Nike Outdoor High School National meet in Eugene, Oregon, Brosnan had a five-to 10-minute conversation with prospect 3, a rising junior, and her high school distance coach."
But was the conversation actually just a casual greeting or was it about recruiting?
"Prospect 3 confirmed the conversation was recruiting in nature."
Now you can all make your own decision on whether violations actually occurred.